4 ms·
You said the article disagrees with RRC's post, which it does not. It seems now you're just taking issue with the progression RRC made to get to the point? Or
by vehementi 13y ago
You said the article disagrees with RRC's post, which it does not. It seems now you're just taking issue with the progression RRC made to get to the point? Or that you think she should have gone into the paper she cited? OK. But it doesn't make claims contrary to the OP. And the thing you quoted does not disagree with the other thing you quoted.
- diminoten 13y agoIt does disagree, for the reason stated above. It's as if RRC were going to write more, decided not to, and just skipped to the conclusion.
- sesqu 13y agoThe part you quoted does disagree with the article, but not with the part you quoted: RRC said we can measure the delay, and it is 0. The article said we can derive the delay, and it is almost 0. That aside, yes, RRC's comments are often lacking in one way or another. However, they're also solid attempts at explaining something ad hoc, a very valuable thing on Reddit.
- vehementi 13y ago> The article said we can derive the delay, and it is almost 0. I read the article again and couldn't pick this out - could you point this out to me please?
- sesqu 13y ago"The net result is that the effect of propagation delay is almost exactly cancelled, and general relativity very nearly reproduces the newtonian result."