Oh, I'm sure he's been thoroughly deboonked with much complicated maths and "relativistic frame jump theory" and handwaving etc. etc. just look at the bottom of his Wikipedia entry they're right there /sarc/.
This is one of those "Who you gonna believe? Us, or your lyin' eyes?" moments.
The problem is I'm just smart enough to understand by looking at the solar system geometrically and understanding why gravity has to be either instantaneous, or operating at a huge multiple of C, or some other force other than attraction (it's end result is indistinguishable from (near?)instantaneous attraction, but it's actual mechanism is something else), but not nearly smart enough to work through the various equations to defend VanFlandern's paper (and what's obviously true).
There's still a mountain of bullshit in physics/astrophysics/general science which needs slogged through, (e.g. "dark matter" is still seriously treated as a thing, when the Electric Universe theorists have shown it's far more likely "dark matter" is plasma). This is why I'm so excited for your book, because it looks like you're going to bulldoze some traincars of bullshit off the mountain.
Most science fetishists don't grasp that Science is always uncertain or completely in the dark about some aspects of Reality, or we wouldn't continue to investigate it. The assumption that Science is always "right" is nonsensical, as perusal of the history of Science demonstrates again and again. The fetishists worship at the feet of a toolbox rather than some Dephi-like oracle as they imagine.
Can't wait to read the rest.
Y'all will probably enjoy this from the late great Tom VanFlandern
https://metaresearch.org/cosmology/cosmology2/the-speed-of-gravity-what-the-experiments-say
Here's someone who disagrees. Haven't had a chance to review it yet.
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909087
Oh, I'm sure he's been thoroughly deboonked with much complicated maths and "relativistic frame jump theory" and handwaving etc. etc. just look at the bottom of his Wikipedia entry they're right there /sarc/.
This is one of those "Who you gonna believe? Us, or your lyin' eyes?" moments.
The problem is I'm just smart enough to understand by looking at the solar system geometrically and understanding why gravity has to be either instantaneous, or operating at a huge multiple of C, or some other force other than attraction (it's end result is indistinguishable from (near?)instantaneous attraction, but it's actual mechanism is something else), but not nearly smart enough to work through the various equations to defend VanFlandern's paper (and what's obviously true).
There's still a mountain of bullshit in physics/astrophysics/general science which needs slogged through, (e.g. "dark matter" is still seriously treated as a thing, when the Electric Universe theorists have shown it's far more likely "dark matter" is plasma). This is why I'm so excited for your book, because it looks like you're going to bulldoze some traincars of bullshit off the mountain.
I enjoyed it, indeed! Thanks for sharing.
I remember playing with iron fillings when I was a kid. It was fascinating to watch them depict a magnetic field.
Following intently, and curious about how much there is for me to unlearn, as well as to discover. Regardless, this will be fun!
It seems like just about everything we know is wrong!
Most science fetishists don't grasp that Science is always uncertain or completely in the dark about some aspects of Reality, or we wouldn't continue to investigate it. The assumption that Science is always "right" is nonsensical, as perusal of the history of Science demonstrates again and again. The fetishists worship at the feet of a toolbox rather than some Dephi-like oracle as they imagine.
With many institutions of " Higher Learning " students are told what to think not HOW to think, akin to " Shut up and Calculate."