Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: longshadow; VadeRetro
It think the author is confusing the prediction of the precession of Mercury's perihelion with some sort of test of SR. He's got it all mixed up. You're right about the bending of starlight being the falsification test of GR.

Sounds like I'm confused too in what I thought. I think relativity is one of those things that should probably be left to professionals. I just remembered another successful prediction; don't the clocks on the shuttle run slow enough for the difference to be detectable by the time it lands after a long flight? I'm sure I read it somewhere (so it must be true). I think it was in Relativities Chapter 3 Verses 4-6.

80 posted on 11/10/2005 8:22:43 AM PST by Thatcherite (Feminized androgenous automaton euro-weenie blackguard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies ]


To: Thatcherite
don't the clocks on the shuttle run slow....

Correct.

It's another prediction of SR; time slows down the faster you go. It wasn't testable until the advent of atomic clocks and jet airplanes to provide the combination of precision and speed needed to measure the effect.

In any case, it's worth noting that despite the anti-Evos being all over this thread for more than 60 posts, it was the Evo's who first noticed and pointed out the errors. Thankfully, the historical errors are not relevant to his analysis and conclusions regarding Popper's falsification principle and it's application to ID "theory." In that regard, he is entirely correct: ID is not scientific.

83 posted on 11/10/2005 8:34:07 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson