could relativity proof have been falsified?

[raaaid]

Originally Posted by Outlaw

This link, provided by you, definitively explains that refraction is accounted for...

--Outlaw.

http://paias.org/Science/Einstein/Ein1Summary.htm

what that link says is that sun atmosphre refraction was not accounted til the 90s

It turns out that the bending of light by the Sun due to atmospheric refraction — which we know exists more certainly than we think gravitational lensing exists, Newton, again — is approximately of the same order of magnitude as current estimates for “gravitational lensing”, but no one (as of the late 1990s) has taken it into account, at least not with any publicity.


the rest are cheap sophisms

edit:

for what i watched in tv the order of the results are given by the amount of traffic

that means this thread is in the top 0.000001% in traffic revelance on relaivity being falsified

edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction

The elementary properties of sliding (kinetic) friction were discovered by experiment in the 15th to 18th centuries and were expressed as three empirical laws:
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.

edit:

yesterdy it was cuolombs law today its amontons law, useless tt messing you knowe whatever i DID you cant change

edit:



you just change all science history on friction, yet why my notes didnt change