On Mar 28, 7:04*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
On Mar 28, 12:28*pm, Eric Gisse wrote: On Mar 28, 1:06*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
[snip whatever]

Your stupidity would be far more entertaining if you would be bothered
to make the effort of writing a complete sentence to express a
thought.

---------------------
litle 24 disturbed imbecil icurable parrot
i dont need your ****en advaices
a parrot like you
is *not in a position to undersand my physics
2
things that i have already forgotten
you still didnt came *there
and will bever be there

Y.P
------------------------------------

Can someone translate for me because I have no ****ing idea what he is
saying.

On Mar 28, 2:12*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 28, 7:04*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:





On Mar 28, 12:28*pm, Eric Gisse wrote: On Mar 28, 1:06*am, "Y.Porat" wrote:
[snip whatever]

Your stupidity would be far more entertaining if you would be bothered
to make the effort of writing a complete sentence to express a
thought.

---------------------
litle 24 disturbed imbecil icurable parrot
i dont need your ****en advaices
a parrot like you
is *not in a position to undersand my physics
2
things that i have already forgotten
you still didnt came *there
and will bever be there

Y.P
------------------------------------

Can someone translate for me because I have no ****ing idea what he is
saying.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since space-time extension is curved anything occupying it will bend
with it.
Your meter rod is curved because it is extended in curved space.
Everything is geometrically curved because everything is Extended in
curved space.
Gravity is ubiquitous in the universe.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laureate 2008

On Mar 28, 1:34 pm, PD wrote:
On Mar 28, 2:54 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

So, they are correct.

No, they are *approximately* right. Under certain circumstances, they
may be wrong only by 0.00002% and that may be well below measurement
resolution and so it doesn't matter. But they are still wrong.

Again, what you call "wrong" is actually the disagreement between the
Newtonian result and the crackpot conjecture of GR in the second order
effect. You believe in GR because through matheMagic, you can fudge
anything to match whatever result you wish/believe in to be. This
does not mean GR is correct and Newtonian law of gravity is wrong.
More likely, both are just wrong down to the second order effect.
shrug

You'll note that if a behavior satisfies the differential equation dF/
dt = aF, then the behavior can be well approximated by the solution
F(t) = c[1 + at + (at)^2/2]. This is a simple and useful formula that
gets an answer that is just fine for small t. It is however wrong.

This exercise is absolutely fruitless. It comes from someone who
deeply believe in GR as a religion inclination. Faith is talking
here. shrug

Just because your chick-sh*t conjectures shows a different second
order result from the Newtonian law of gravity does not mean yours is
the right one.

Of course. It's just that there are no other models presently that
agree with measurement better than relativity does.

So, GR based on cracky mathematical foundation does not bother you at
all because of your own ignorance. Well, Confucius used to say
'Ignorance is blessing in disguise." This proves that you argue to
defend GR through fait, and arguing with your faith yields no useful
results anywhere and anytime. shrug

I have asked you to show me where any other experiments that actually
have proven the deflected angle of a photon being twice of Newtonian
prediction, and you came back with more crap. You seem to enjoy
swimming in crap. So, the rest of your crap can only be mercifully
snipped to preserve the sanity of humanity and for the next generation
of scientific development. shrug

On Mar 29, 10:44*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 28, 1:34 pm, PD wrote:

On Mar 28, 2:54 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
So, they are correct.

No, they are *approximately* right. Under certain circumstances, they
may be wrong only by 0.00002% and that may be well below measurement
resolution and so it doesn't matter. But they are still wrong.

Again, what you call "wrong" is actually the disagreement between the
Newtonian result and the crackpot conjecture of GR in the second order
effect. *You believe in GR because through matheMagic, you can fudge
anything to match whatever result you wish/believe in to be.

Prove it. Show us how you can make the result be 4 times the Newtonian
result.

[...]

On Mar 29, 10:44*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
[...]

I have asked you to show me where any other experiments that actually
have proven the deflected angle of a photon being twice of Newtonian
prediction, and you came back with more crap. *

BTW:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...0?dmode=source

On Mar 27, 11:21 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

[...]

Eddington did not have the accuracy in his experimental setup to
measure the deflected angle. So, the 1919 event cannot be taken as a
scientific proof of your conjecture.

That's OK. It's been repeated since 1919.

Which experiment showed photon deflection besides the 1919
expeditions?

www.google.com "how to use google"

What is really funny is that if I put your _exact words_ into Google
there are at least a half dozen articles that answer your very
question! In fact, of the first 10 links, I see 5 of which contain the
answer to your question.

[...]

On Mar 30, 1:44*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 28, 1:34 pm, PD wrote:

On Mar 28, 2:54 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
So, they are correct.

No, they are *approximately* right. Under certain circumstances, they
may be wrong only by 0.00002% and that may be well below measurement
resolution and so it doesn't matter. But they are still wrong.

Again, what you call "wrong" is actually the disagreement between the
Newtonian result and the crackpot conjecture of GR in the second order
effect. *

The one that gets the *measurable* quantity more accurately, whether
calculated as a second order effect or not, wins. Relativity wins over
relativity in many such cases.

You believe in GR because through matheMagic, you can fudge
anything to match whatever result you wish/believe in to be. *This
does not mean GR is correct and Newtonian law of gravity is wrong.

It means that GR gets the answer better than Newtonian gravity.

More likely, both are just wrong down to the second order effect.

Sorry, GR doesn't have any indication, at least in match-up against
experimental data, of being wrong. Now, you may believe it's wrong
anyway, but you have no experimental data in support of that.

shrug

You'll note that if a behavior satisfies the differential equation dF/
dt = aF, then the behavior can be well approximated by the solution
F(t) = c[1 + at + (at)^2/2]. This is a simple and useful formula that
gets an answer that is just fine for small t. It is however wrong.

This exercise is absolutely fruitless. *It comes from someone who
deeply believe in GR as a religion inclination.

OK, don't look at it if it's painful.

*Faith is talking
here. *shrug

Just because your chick-sh*t conjectures shows a different second
order result from the Newtonian law of gravity does not mean yours is
the right one.

Of course. It's just that there are no other models presently that
agree with measurement better than relativity does.

So, GR based on cracky mathematical foundation does not bother you at
all because of your own ignorance.

Sorry, GR isn't based on a cracky mathematical foundation, or any
mathematical foundation at all. And it agrees with data. That, in
science, is enough, whether you like it or not, or whether you want
to invent other reasons to try to discredit theories.

*Well, Confucius used to say
'Ignorance is blessing in disguise." *This proves that you argue to
defend GR through fait, and arguing with your faith yields no useful
results anywhere and anytime. *shrug

I have asked you to show me where any other experiments that actually
have proven the deflected angle of a photon being twice of Newtonian
prediction, and you came back with more crap.

No, I gave you *exactly* what you asked for. They are called
experimental results. If you want to dismiss experimental results as
"crap", then this is the point where you deviate from doing science.

*You seem to enjoy
swimming in crap. *So, the rest of your crap can only be mercifully
snipped to preserve the sanity of humanity and for the next generation
of scientific development. *shrug

"PD" wrote in message
...
On Mar 30, 1:44 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Mar 28, 1:34 pm, PD wrote:

On Mar 28, 2:54 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
So, they are correct.

No, they are *approximately* right. Under certain circumstances, they
may be wrong only by 0.00002% and that may be well below measurement
resolution and so it doesn't matter. But they are still wrong.

Again, what you call "wrong" is actually the disagreement between the
Newtonian result and the crackpot conjecture of GR in the second order
effect.

| The one that gets the *measurable* quantity more accurately, whether
| calculated as a second order effect or not, wins. Relativity wins over
| relativity in many such cases.

Yes, but relativity loses over relativity in many such cases too.
Idiot!



You believe in GR because through matheMagic, you can fudge
anything to match whatever result you wish/believe in to be. This
does not mean GR is correct and Newtonian law of gravity is wrong.

| It means that GR gets the answer better than Newtonian gravity.

Lying ****.



More likely, both are just wrong down to the second order effect.

| Sorry, GR doesn't have any indication, at least in match-up against
| experimental data, of being wrong.

You should be sorry, Newtonian gravity doesn't have any indication,
at least in match-up against experimental data, of being wrong.
It means that Newtonian gravity gets the answer better than GR,
which loses every time over GR, crank.


| Now, you may believe it's wrong
| anyway, but you have no experimental data in support of that.

Now, you may believe you are right anyway, but you have no
experimental data in support of that, ****head.

On Mar 30, 7:55 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"PD" wrote in message

...
On Mar 30, 1:44 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On Mar 28, 1:34 pm, PD wrote:

On Mar 28, 2:54 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
So, they are correct.

No, they are *approximately* right. Under certain circumstances, they
may be wrong only by 0.00002% and that may be well below measurement
resolution and so it doesn't matter. But they are still wrong.

Again, what you call "wrong" is actually the disagreement between the
Newtonian result and the crackpot conjecture of GR in the second order
effect.

| The one that gets the *measurable* quantity more accurately, whether
| calculated as a second order effect or not, wins. Relativity wins over
| relativity in many such cases.

Yes, but relativity loses over relativity in many such cases too.
Idiot!

You believe in GR because through matheMagic, you can fudge
anything to match whatever result you wish/believe in to be. This
does not mean GR is correct and Newtonian law of gravity is wrong.

| It means that GR gets the answer better than Newtonian gravity.

Lying ****.

More likely, both are just wrong down to the second order effect.

| Sorry, GR doesn't have any indication, at least in match-up against
| experimental data, of being wrong.

You should be sorry, Newtonian gravity doesn't have any indication,
at least in match-up against experimental data, of being wrong.
It means that Newtonian gravity gets the answer better than GR,
which loses every time over GR, crank.

As you said yourself, Androcles, denial earns you no brownie points.


| Now, you may believe it's wrong
| anyway, but you have no experimental data in support of that.

Now, you may believe you are right anyway, but you have no
experimental data in support of that, ****head.

"PD" wrote in message
...
| On Mar 30, 7:55 am, "Androcles" wrote:
| "PD" wrote in message
|
|
...
| On Mar 30, 1:44 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
|
| On Mar 28, 1:34 pm, PD wrote:
|
| On Mar 28, 2:54 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
| So, they are correct.
|
| No, they are *approximately* right. Under certain circumstances,
they
| may be wrong only by 0.00002% and that may be well below measurement
| resolution and so it doesn't matter. But they are still wrong.
|
| Again, what you call "wrong" is actually the disagreement between the
| Newtonian result and the crackpot conjecture of GR in the second order
| effect.
|
| | The one that gets the *measurable* quantity more accurately, whether
| | calculated as a second order effect or not, wins. Relativity wins over
| | relativity in many such cases.
|
| Yes, but relativity loses over relativity in many such cases too.
| Idiot!
|
| You believe in GR because through matheMagic, you can fudge
| anything to match whatever result you wish/believe in to be. This
| does not mean GR is correct and Newtonian law of gravity is wrong.
|
| | It means that GR gets the answer better than Newtonian gravity.
|
| Lying ****.
|
| More likely, both are just wrong down to the second order effect.
|
| | Sorry, GR doesn't have any indication, at least in match-up against
| | experimental data, of being wrong.
|
| You should be sorry, Newtonian gravity doesn't have any indication,
| at least in match-up against experimental data, of being wrong.
| It means that Newtonian gravity gets the answer better than GR,
| which loses every time over GR, crank.
|
| As you said yourself, Androcles, denial earns you no brownie points.

Nor does assertion, Duck.

You are completely wrong, Newton's correct values outweigh Einstein's
wrong guesses. Short trip to wrong, Duck. Oh wait, you were already there.
(Sounding just like you but with Newton and Einstein reversed.)

"mv is not momentum." - Idiot, it must be drapertum.

You are an insane bigot, Duck, you don't even know what a definition is.
According to you "we know" the LHC measured a 7 TeV collision before
it goes into service.

"Relativity wins over relativity in many such cases." - PD


That's as crazy as you and Ghost really are, you ****in' lunatics.
Cretin!



| | Now, you may believe it's wrong
| | anyway, but you have no experimental data in support of that.
|
| Now, you may believe you are right anyway, but you have no
| experimental data in support of that, ****head.
|

On Mar 30, 7:40*am, PD wrote:
On Mar 30, 1:44*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

On Mar 28, 1:34 pm, PD wrote:

On Mar 28, 2:54 pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
So, they are correct.

No, they are *approximately* right. Under certain circumstances, they
may be wrong only by 0.00002% and that may be well below measurement
resolution and so it doesn't matter. But they are still wrong.

Again, what you call "wrong" is actually the disagreement between the
Newtonian result and the crackpot conjecture of GR in the second order
effect. *

The one that gets the *measurable* quantity more accurately, whether
calculated as a second order effect or not, wins. Relativity wins over
relativity in many such cases.

Whoops, meant to say "relativity wins over Newtonian physics in many
such cases". There are no known cases where Newtonian physics wins
over relativity.

Thanks to Androcles for catching the error.


You believe in GR because through matheMagic, you can fudge
anything to match whatever result you wish/believe in to be. *This
does not mean GR is correct and Newtonian law of gravity is wrong.

It means that GR gets the answer better than Newtonian gravity.

More likely, both are just wrong down to the second order effect.

Sorry, GR doesn't have any indication, at least in match-up against
experimental data, of being wrong. Now, you may believe it's wrong
anyway, but you have no experimental data in support of that.

shrug

You'll note that if a behavior satisfies the differential equation dF/
dt = aF, then the behavior can be well approximated by the solution
F(t) = c[1 + at + (at)^2/2]. This is a simple and useful formula that
gets an answer that is just fine for small t. It is however wrong.

This exercise is absolutely fruitless. *It comes from someone who
deeply believe in GR as a religion inclination.

OK, don't look at it if it's painful.

*Faith is talking
here. *shrug

Just because your chick-sh*t conjectures shows a different second
order result from the Newtonian law of gravity does not mean yours is
the right one.

Of course. It's just that there are no other models presently that
agree with measurement better than relativity does.

So, GR based on cracky mathematical foundation does not bother you at
all because of your own ignorance.

Sorry, GR isn't based on a cracky mathematical foundation, or any
mathematical foundation at all. And it agrees with data. That, in
science, is enough, whether you like it or not, or *whether you want
to invent other reasons to try to discredit theories.

*Well, Confucius used to say
'Ignorance is blessing in disguise." *This proves that you argue to
defend GR through fait, and arguing with your faith yields no useful
results anywhere and anytime. *shrug

I have asked you to show me where any other experiments that actually
have proven the deflected angle of a photon being twice of Newtonian
prediction, and you came back with more crap.

No, I gave you *exactly* what you asked for. They are called
experimental results. If you want to dismiss experimental results as
"crap", then this is the point where you deviate from doing science.

*You seem to enjoy
swimming in crap. *So, the rest of your crap can only be mercifully
snipped to preserve the sanity of humanity and for the next generation
of scientific development. *shrug