Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 478: Line 478:     
: That's enough for now.  Do you still have any objections to counterexamples 1-6, or 9-12?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:43, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
 
: That's enough for now.  Do you still have any objections to counterexamples 1-6, or 9-12?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:43, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
 +
 +
:: (7) That's what you say, but you haven't ''proved'' it yet. I did.
 +
 +
:: (8) Which logical problems? Are you disturbed by the fact that orthogonal and transverse masses are different? A disturb is not a concectual problem at all. Why don't you link some scientific article saying that this is a logical problem that proves inconsistency of the theory?
 +
 +
:: (13) You should pay attention to the abstracts. This guy reports limits on observations that could be made with experiments designed to search for gravitational waves (such as LIGO and VIRGO), not gravitons (this is another point). So, this is not a valid source. Can you tell me an experiment designed to catch gravitons?
 +
 +
:: (16) I agree on Obama's nobel: peace Nobels are definitely politicized. This is not so true for the other prizes, though. Now you have to cite some article saying that the standard model, or every other relativity-based theory, isn't a great insight: as before, you ''say'' that but you don't ''prove'' that.
 +
 +
:: (26) Or maybe you cannot read formulas: I'll repeat for the sake of clearness. If m=0 then E=|p|c, so that massless particles can have nonzero momentum if and only if they have nonzero energy: they're directly proportional. Actually, a photon with energy E has a momentum equal to E/c.
 +
 +
:: Don't be impatient, you have to justify these statements first (don't forget (32) and (33)). --[[User:MM87|<font color="#E56717">'''MM'''</font>]]''[[User_talk:MM87|<font color="#FBB117">'''''87'''''</font>]] 07:20, 14 August 2011 (EDT)
79

edits

Navigation menu