Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo
easy now, I merely made the point that you suggested a fundamental error on the author's GR math. To me (yep i read the material), he directly commented on the GR math derivations, which you dismissed the author on?
Yes, I also would think that fundamental GR math would be fairly well understood by the peer review process of this particular journal (the oldest in existence).... but that's irrelevant, as the above point still holds. The author is aware of mathematical GR predictions, as it is the subject of the paper, and is directly mentioned in the content of his site.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
However, i'm not arguing theories, just alerting to observations, which i found interesting when trying to assess validity of either.
I just found your previous post a little dismissive and based on misapplication of GR fundamentals, i thought you may not have actually read the content, so i just pointed out the part where the GR maths were applied, i'd be interested on comments on this.
You've now moved away from specifics GR fundamentals of the science, into a vague dismissal based on what gets printed in what journal.
I'm not interested in this.
|
Evidently you have failed to comprehend my first post.
Steven