Whoever posted the disproof of bent light is not relevant. Facts were posted which disproved it. If Parsec wants to dispute this I request he quotes the disproof and gives a blow by blow explanation of exactly where it goes wrong. I can find no fault with it and so I think it stands.
Believe it or not, these issues have been discussed extensively before. It is up to you to search past threads and read what has been said.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards
Quote from: parsec on July 24, 2010, 02:22:10 PMBelieve it or not, these issues have been discussed extensively before. It is up to you to search past threads and read what has been said.Believe it or not, these issues have been discussed extensively before. It is up to you to read the scientific journals and records and read what has been said. For example: http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/eduoff/aol/market/collaboration/soleclipse/solecl-3d.html.
Quote from: ClockTower on July 24, 2010, 03:40:52 PMQuote from: parsec on July 24, 2010, 02:22:10 PMBelieve it or not, these issues have been discussed extensively before. It is up to you to search past threads and read what has been said.Believe it or not, these issues have been discussed extensively before. It is up to you to read the scientific journals and records and read what has been said. For example: http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/eduoff/aol/market/collaboration/soleclipse/solecl-3d.html.Thank you for posting such a quality resource.