[north]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff

Dear North:

In the absence of air resistance, both test objects strike the ground simultaneously.
Until further notice, this is a very well established empirical fact.
(Re: 'Roland von Eotvos' in google)

Best regards,
- RP

well sometimes you just have to do the experiment your self

I saw no experiment that was done at thousands of feet.

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by north

well sometimes you just have to do the experiment your self

I saw no experiment that was done at thousands of feet.

Dear North:
You may have answered your own question here.
On the other hand I assure you that many extensive vestments have gone into determing the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass as I have described it and far beyond.

Best regards,
- RP

[north]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff

Dear North:
You may have answered your own question here.
On the other hand I assure you that many extensive vestments have gone into determing the equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass as I have described it and far beyond.

Best regards,
- RP

the thing is that , if the larger the mass the greater the gravity attraction between two objects .

there seems to be contradiction , in saying that a smaller mass has the same potential of attraction as a larger mass.?

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by north

the thing is that , if the larger the mass the greater the gravity attraction between two objects .

there seems to be contradiction , in saying that a smaller mass has the same potential of attraction as a larger mass.?

________________________

Dear North:
That's the enigma apparent.
Einstein's (alleged) explanation for it is that 'space time curves'.

You might check out Total Field Theory
at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.

Regards,
-RP

[north]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff

________________________

Dear North:
That's the enigma apparent.
Einstein's (alleged) explanation for it is that 'space time curves'.

You might check out Total Field Theory
at http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.

Regards,
-RP

actually been there done that.

such as the argument that Rutherford " prove " this warping of space because of his observations in Africa eclipse( I think ) but any way I disagree.

for they did not consider that the Sun had an atmosphere , that this was the reason that the light from a star was bent from behind the Sun.

or atmospheric optics

Einstein did not prove ( nor has anybody else ) that space, alone has any substance .

you curve the matter IN space , not space its self

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by north

actually been there done that.

such as the argument that Rutherford " prove " this warping of space because of his observations in Africa eclipse( I think ) but any way I disagree.

for they did not consider that the Sun had an atmosphere , that this was the reason that the light from a star was bent from behind the Sun.

or atmospheric optics

Einstein did not prove ( nor has anybody else ) that space, alone has any substance .

you curve the matter IN space , not space its self

__________________

Dear North:
Please bear with me on this. Are you saying that the expedition of 1919 didn't take into account any refraction effect and that's the reason they obtained the results they obtained. (The 'curvature of space-time')?

[north]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff

__________________

Dear North:
Please bear with me on this. Are you saying that the expedition of 1919 didn't take into account any refraction effect and that's the reason they obtained the results they obtained. (The 'curvature of space-time')?

yes and no

yes they didn't take into account the Nature of the emissions given off by the Sun

and no that is not why they obtained the results they did.

they obtained the results by a different perspective , space-time.

I how ever argue that the results would be and are the same if the refraction of light , which occured , was viewed as eminations from the Sun. as in a mirage in a desert.


inotherwords what was observed by Rutherford was a misunderstanding of interpretation

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by north

yes and no

yes they didn't take into account the Nature of the emissions given off by the Sun

and no that is not why they obtained the results they did.

they obtained the results by a different perspective , space-time.

I how ever argue that the results would be and are the same if the refraction of light , which occured , was viewed as eminations from the Sun. as in a mirage in a desert.


inotherwords what was observed by Rutherford was a misunderstanding of interpretation

Dear North:
Please objectively account for your unorthodox contention.

Best regards,
- RP

[north]

Originally Posted by RascalPuff

Dear North:
Please objectively account for your unorthodox contention.

Best regards,
- RP

okay

lets start here

say for instance I were to raise the Planet Earth so that the north pole of the Earth is level with the north pole of the Sun . the light would pass , from the star behind the Sun , directly to the north pole of the Earth. but the light from the star behind the Sun would still be bent towards the south pole of the Earth.

now I raise the south pole of the Earth to be level to the north pole of the Sun . the light from the star behind the Sun would now directly go to the south pole of the Earth.

and the light from the star behind the Sun would also go directly to the north pole of the Earth. no distortion is observered if the said stars light from behind the Sun is not in contact with any obstacles between its self and the Sun.

[north]

further


Quote:
Originally Posted by bishadi
That eclipse did not prove Einstein’s relativity. Has anyone ever seen a mirage? That when light interacts with the surface release (aka..heat) over a pavement, what happens to the light, kind of bending. Well, if we were looking at a star behind the sun and the moon covered the sun’s light would not the emissions of the sun affect that light?



on http//:www.universetoday.com/ then go to "forums " then scroll to , against the mainstream and then to the thread " chemistry and physics contradict ".