Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
So the trail goes cold at this point, just as the data diverge from the GR predictions and the margin of error declines to where it can't save GR.
Line 71: Line 71:     
This is really getting into the tall grass, and I know how you hate wasting time. Maybe we can bring this conversation to a conclusion? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 21:38, 14 November 2009 (EST)
 
This is really getting into the tall grass, and I know how you hate wasting time. Maybe we can bring this conversation to a conclusion? --[[User:KSorenson|KSorenson]] 21:38, 14 November 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
:Kate, I have an open mind about this but, quite honestly, the relativists protest too much.  Why do you care so much about defending relativity?  Not to pick on you, however, because many trained in math and physics likewise defend relativity like they are defending their own reputation.  It's bizarre.  Regardless of the reason, protesting too much is not scientific.
 +
 +
:Answering the substance of your post, your most recent data is from 1992 (17 years ago, with the data probably older than that), and its margin of error confirms what I said: it's approaching 0.1.  Combine that 0.1 (or 0.14 if you like) with the most recent data and it's clear that GR no longer fits the data.  Of course, no one is going to dare publish a paper claiming GR is disproved by the data, and even if they tried, no journal would accept it.  So the trail goes cold at this point, just as the data diverge from the GR predictions and the margin of error declines to where it can't save GR.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:37, 14 November 2009 (EST)
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,194

edits

Navigation menu