Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: clzb93ynxj@att.net (LaurenceClarkCrossen)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Newton: Photon falling from h meters increase its energy.
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 21:36:13 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <d0d8baf9b60cd8db0ac8f8698c486732@www.novabbs.com>
References: <4af374770bb67b6951ef19c75b35fbad@www.novabbs.com> <1819b35cb5854fb7$83258$1308629$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com> <17a125a3e75f42ff91ef08afdab4e0a9@www.novabbs.com> <1819b79e1aa58c97$89507$1329657$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <9e55d347a16ad439d5b2e75440ae1a6d@www.novabbs.com> <6782d853$0$28064$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <c2fdc44dd6b77812b78bd871c9bde8f3@www.novabbs.com> <4404fd8d88a2eacd658d92efeef4d6c2@www.novabbs.com> <vm3ncs$20493$1@dont-email.me> <7db98cab57f6050f8daf2f88b9bfdcdb@www.novabbs.com> <vm6lel$2jd9o$1@dont-email.me> <4568ec448c26221aea0c57a6bfc7b29b@www.novabbs.com> <vm8bd2$2v29k$1@dont-email.me> <735acd1678938a0da82e207ed024d0fc@www.novabbs.com> <vmbmj0$3kl6v$2@dont-email.me> <e90bec1392317cfbacad0c2cd137b90e@www.novabbs.com> <678b8299$0$12937$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="37355"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="HcQFdl4zp4UQRQ9N18ivMn6Fl9V8n4SPkK4oZHLgYdQ";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: a2f761a7401f13abeefca3440f16b2f27b708180
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$vkMO3i739kloK.SLzfxgAecNrPQ6waDGBjiMJg8VLXA8PS7z7xOk.
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 10:29:45 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 19:29:51 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>
>>> Den 15.01.2025 18:46, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>>> On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:00:31 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> GR's prediction for the gravitational deflection
>>>>> is confirmed by a number of experiments:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
>>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> You know, experimental evidence _is_ the reality.
>>>>> Your opinion is fantasy.
>>>
>>>> Your opinion and that of the majority and the authorities are irrelevant
>>>> fantasies.
>>>
>>> Quite.
>>> Anybody's fantasies are irrelevant.
>>>
>>> But the experimental evidence is reality, not fantasy.
>>>
>>> GR's predictions for the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
>>> are so thoroughly experimentally confirmed that you have to be
>>> extremely ignorant not to accept it.
>>>
>>>> You fail to address Poor's refutation of the derivation. If
>>>> you want to do that, you would need to bring up Trumpler, as I have done
>>>> by mentioning his paper.
>>>
>>> How is it possible to fail to understand that experimental
>>> evidence has proven Poor wrong?
>> You must be extremely ignorant to think an experiment can prove a false
>> derivation.
>
> Correct.
> However, if a derivation leads to a result that is obviously at variance
> with what is well known about the world it looses much of its interest.
> It becomes a 'spot the error' puzzle.
>
> You can't blame people for not having a taste for that,
>
> Jan
> (hasn't)
When a derivation involves facile logical fallacies it has no value.
You're appeals to experiment deflect from the issue. That's how
ideologues defend their politics.