could relativity proof have been falsified?

[raaaid]

nope how google ranks webs its a mistery i wathced on tv that traffic influenced a lot

so to my question if force of friction is dependant of surface your answer is yes and no both

tell me how could have einstein accounted for sun atmosphere star light bending being this 15 time bigger than gravitational lensing

you could save words like drug adict damged mind, more stupid than a plant

you know too well thats what a child does when losing an argument

how did eisntein account for atmospheric starlight bending

is howed you one link that explain this wasnt account till the 90s show me one where shows he did account for this eeffect

the balls in your side since every knows he couldnt know what the sun atmosphere was like

edit:


galileo tomamas and culomb and my teacher have a very clear answer for this:

is force of friction(not coeficient of friction) dpendant of surface?


a)yes
b)no
c)yes and no

wrong answer will be 3.333333..... negative points

edit:

outlaw you brough up an interesting point:

i have a damage mind cause i take my ramblings as FACT

wel in this thread i havemention i DIDNT KNOW if relativity was true or not, in fact in the graviational lensing or not happening is the key on causality, although this was brought down imo by INSTANT quantum entanglement

so im QUESTIONING relativity

while you take relativity as FACT

who has the damaged mind then?

me who question and realizes i know nothing for sure

or you who takes OTHERS experiences and stories as FACT

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by raaaid

nope how google ranks webs its a mistery i wathced on tv that traffic influenced a lot

If that is true, the person who stated that is incorrect. You claim you question everything but you accept that TV show as FACT! Why have you not researched it? You can find the answer easily if you take a few minutes. Yet you refuse. Why is that?

We all know the answer but please enlighten us anyway.

Originally Posted by raaaid

so to my question if force of friction is dependant of surface your answer is yes and no both

I have clearly shown the answer and even asked what part you don't understand. In response you just regurgitate the same garbage you have been spouting.

Why won't you respond to my specific question?

Originally Posted by raaaid

tell me how could have einstein accounted for sun atmosphere star light bending being this 15 time bigger than gravitational lensing

how did eisntein account for atmospheric starlight bending

is howed you one link that explain this wasnt account till the 90s show me one where shows he did account for this eeffect

the balls in your side since every knows he couldnt know what the sun atmosphere was like

I already said I don't know the specifics of the experiment. Furthermore, I have NEVER stated that he did account for it.

I have no interest in finding out the specifics of the experiment. If you want to know, YOU go find out.

You are arguing a point THAT I NEVER MADE.

Originally Posted by raaaid

you could save words like drug adict damged mind, more stupid than a plant

you know too well thats what a child does when losing an argument

And you could have avoided calling engineers and scientists stupid. You could have avoided calling everyone that did not believe you stupid. But you didn't.

Originally Posted by raaaid

galileo tomamas and culomb and my teacher have a very clear answer for this:

is force of friction(not coeficient of friction) dpendant of surface?


a)yes
b)no
c)yes and no

wrong answer will be 3.333333..... negative points

You are incapable of understanding the context of their answers or even of your question. That...is why you fail.

Besides, I already answered this one above.

Originally Posted by raaaid

outlaw you brough up an interesting point:

i have a damage mind cause i take my ramblings as FACT

wel in this thread i havemention i DIDNT KNOW if relativity was true or not, in fact in the graviational lensing or not happening is the key on causality, although this was brought down imo by INSTANT quantum entanglement

so im QUESTIONING relativity

while you take relativity as FACT

who has the damaged mind then?

me who question and realizes i know nothing for sure

or you who takes OTHERS experiences and stories as FACT

You will NEVER be able to experimentally determine ANYTHING so, by your logic, NOTHING WILL EVER BE TRUE.

I take relativity as fact not because of an experiment in 1919, but because of recent experiments. You act as if nothing has been done since 1919.

And to reiterate, I NEVER stated that the 1919 experiment(s) took refraction into account.

--Outlaw.

[raaaid]

to my question is the force necesary to beat friction surface dependant?

your answer: yes and no it depends

you see how youre a chip sophist who dont mind the truth how can a thing be and not be?

next questions:

do you THINK einstein took into acount atmospheric starlight bending when he got the nobel prize for light bending?

yes-no

do you think he should?

yes-no

[Outlaw]

Originally Posted by raaaid

to my question is the force necesary to beat friction surface dependant?

your answer: yes and no it depends

you see how youre a chip sophist who dont mind the truth how can a thing be and not be?

No, that was NOT my answer. I have ALWAYS said YES. I have NEVER said no or it depends.

I'm sorry that you can't understand what I'm saying but that's your problem and does not make it false.

Originally Posted by raaaid

do you THINK einstein took into acount atmospheric starlight bending when he got the nobel prize for light bending?

I can't possibly answer that with a yes or no. I know absolutely nothing about the experiment. Only a total and complete idiot would give a yes or no answer to that question without researching the experiment.

Originally Posted by raaaid

do you think he should?

Once again, that's not a yes or no question.

If the experimenter had the capability to do so then he/she should have. If not, then there should be no expectation for them to do so. If the knowledge that refraction was a possibility in the experiment it should, of course, be addressed by the experimenter.

--Outlaw.

[raaaid]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

No, that was NOT my answer. I have ALWAYS said YES. I have NEVER said no or it depends.


--Outlaw.

http://www.tribology-abc.com/abc/history.htm

then science history is a farce

Da Vinci simply stated that:

the areas in contact have no effect on friction.
if the load of an object is doubled, its friction will also be doubled.
Note that the first statement is counterintuitive; most of us would assume that friction does depend upon the cross-sectional area.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by raaaid

Note that the first statement is counterintuitive; most of us would assume that friction does depend upon the cross-sectional area.

So what?
Yes it sounds odd, then again everybody can prover it in their own apartment.

btw: Are you ready yet for another wormhole dogfight(WDF2.0)?

[raaaid]

oh come on then why racing cars use such a big tyres

even outlaw agrees friction is surface dependant contrary to what the science geniouses said

Amontons' First Law: The force of friction is directly proportional to the applied load.
Amontons' Second Law: The force of friction is independent of the apparent area of contact.
Coulomb's Law of Friction: Kinetic friction is independent of the sliding velocity.

only thie 1st is true