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.
_____________________
Dear north:
You submit a lot of preemptive - inconclusive - conditions for consideration.
The expedition of 1919 dealt with conditions, in situ; not as they might be...
Best regards,
- RP
__________________ (George Berkeley, 1710) ... lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.
"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus "Reality is an illusion - albeit a persistent one." - Einstein "Particles give me a headache." - Ibid
Dear north:
You submit a lot of preemptive - inconclusive - conditions for consideration.
The expedition of 1919 dealt with conditions, in situ; not as they might be...
Best regards,
- RP
they delt with conditions with a preconception of a theory, only.
this obvious because they didn't take into account of the Suns emissions . and this is a fact.
they delt with conditions with a preconception of a theory, only.
this obvious because they didn't take into account of the Suns emissions . and this is a fact.
____________________________
Dear north:
Kindly authenticate your allegory 'fact'.
Best regards.
- RP
__________________ (George Berkeley, 1710) ... lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.
"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus "Reality is an illusion - albeit a persistent one." - Einstein "Particles give me a headache." - Ibid
yes I've been asked that before . and it is a fact because nobody , while asking the question , can actually show that Einstein or Rutherford did. ironicly!!
as one responder said many moons ago " I assume Albert did " he didn't . Albert was thinking in terms of space-time.
if he had been thinking in terms of the Suns emissions he would have said so clearly.
yes I've been asked that before . and it is a fact because nobody , while asking the question , can actually show that Einstein or Rutherford did. ironicly!!
as one responder said many moons ago " I assume Albert did " he didn't . Albert was thinking in terms of space-time.
if he had been thinking in terms of the Suns emissions he would have said so clearly.
________________________
Dear North:
It is a patent and unreasonable assumption that the sun's emissions (and refraction) were excluded from the experimental evidence - of space-time - at issue.
It seems that you are obsessed with the (cogent) fact of refraction to a point of eliminating it as a factor calculated by and taken into account by Einstein and company. It is much more your obligation to prove that these factors were not accomodated, rather than that they were.
Your implication and/or my inference (of your apparent implication) is that Albert 'cooked the books', or forgot the most fundamental rules altogether, so that he could reach the conclusion he was searching for, a priori...
I will update the assumption you speak of that was interjected in this argument 'many moons ago' - I too, 'assume Albert did'.
It is tentatively absurd to contemplate that he did not.
In lieu of new - documented - information in this debate, we are agreed to disagree.
Best regards,
- RP
__________________ (George Berkeley, 1710) ... lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.
"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus "Reality is an illusion - albeit a persistent one." - Einstein "Particles give me a headache." - Ibid
Dear North:
It is a patent and unreasonable assumption that the sun's emissions (and refraction) were excluded from the experimental evidence - of space-time - at issue.
true
but there you go. I also got this response before . however , nobody so far has been able to show that Albert did .
Quote:
It seems that you are obsessed with the (cogent) fact of refraction to a point of eliminating it as a factor calculated by and taken into account by Einstein and company. It is much more your obligation to prove that these factors were not accomodated, rather than that they were.
not obsessed , just a point made . since through all my readings from years before and in contempary mainstream astronomical texts , taking in the eminations from the Sun is NOT mentioned.
and if they were , would you not correct me as well?
Quote:
Your implication and/or my inference (of your apparent implication) is that Albert 'cooked the books', or forgot the most fundamental rules altogether, so that he could reach the conclusion he was searching for, a priori...
I will update the assumption you speak of that was interjected in this argument 'many moons ago' - I too, 'assume Albert did'.
It is tentatively absurd to contemplate that he did not.
In lieu of new - documented - information in this debate, we are agreed to disagree.
Best regards,
- RP
just because Albert did not mention the Suns " eminations " does not , to me , imply he " cooked the books " just a simply an over-sight on his part.
just because Albert did not mention the Suns " eminations " does not , to me , imply he " cooked the books " just a simply over-sight on his part.
__________________
How could the sun's corona be 'overlooked' (disregarded):
Without (idiomatically) 'cooking the books'.
Are we to consider this an inadvertent oversight?
Something that Einstein forgot to take into consideration?
Best regards
- RP
__________________ (George Berkeley, 1710) ... lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.
"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus "Reality is an illusion - albeit a persistent one." - Einstein "Particles give me a headache." - Ibid
__________________ (George Berkeley, 1710) ... lay the beginning in a distinct explication of what is meant by thing, reality, existence: for in vain shall we dispute concerning the real existence of things, or pretend to any knowledge thereof, so long as we have not fixed the meaning of those words.
"All things come out of the one and the one out of all things." - Heraclitus "Reality is an illusion - albeit a persistent one." - Einstein "Particles give me a headache." - Ibid
Re: Is there an absolute Principle? 
Linear Mode
