Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
47 bytes added ,  21:33, September 14, 2011
m
Line 149: Line 149:  
::Yes Sam, ''"it just isn't correct"''. But can we say it while [[relativists]] maintain that it is correct? We have to have a proof that it isn't correct.  
 
::Yes Sam, ''"it just isn't correct"''. But can we say it while [[relativists]] maintain that it is correct? We have to have a proof that it isn't correct.  
   −
::I don't blame Max for him doing what he had to do not knowing such a proof. I just would like to start a discussion whether my proof is sound one justifying dumping BBH. I'm sure it is but I'm the author so I may be biased (though I took a general realtivity course at Harvard to be sure that I'm right and thought about this for over quater of a century so I'm relatively sure that it is a sound proof of invalidity of BBH). Anyway, I can only help in discussion by keeping it on track when I see wrong arguments, and without anybody discussing this issue it won't be even known that the proof of invalidity of BBH even exists. No mainstream scientific journal ever wanted to publisj this proof despite it is only one page of print. It was published in conservapedia as [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] in a short form suitable for physicists. Longer form with some extentions is in [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]]. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 17:25, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
+
::I don't blame Max for him doing what he had to do not knowing such a proof. I just would like to start a discussion whether my proof is sound one justifying dumping BBH. I'm sure it is but I'm the author so I may be biased (though I took a general realtivity course at Harvard to be sure that I'm right and thought about this for over quater of a century so I'm relatively sure that it is a sound proof of invalidity of BBH). Anyway, I can only help in discussion by keeping it on track when I see wrong arguments, and without anybody discussing this issue it won't be even known that the proof of invalidity of BBH even exists. No mainstream scientific journal ever wanted to publisj this proof despite it is only one page of print. It was published in conservapedia as [[Essay:Hubble redshift in Einstein's universe]] in a short form suitable for physicists. Longer form with step-by-step derivation of redshift in our universe, and more, is in [[Essay:Demystified gravitation]]. [[User:JimJast|JimJast]] 17:25, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
SkipCaptcha
708

edits

Navigation menu