FR vs. GR and a century of experiments

doug wrote:

Phil makes my point for me by acting the fool.

While Doug was trying to figure out how smart Einstein was, Phil went to
the Ig Noble prize at Harvard.

The winners in physics this years is a study on the balance pregnant
women are experiencing. So this means this study won the battle against
Ken Seto's Model Mechanics and Phil Bouchard's Finite Relativism, which
is good news.

The bad news are everybody seemed not agreeing on the money wasted used
for satellites being sent to Jupiter or Saturn, which is related to your
department as I understand.

Why don't you guys give up? It's over.

PD wrote:

So please point out the approximations.

"[...] assumptions":

- The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are
not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or
the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.

- Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of coordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or
by a moving body.


Once again according to FR *both* of these are wrong. Which is a bad
start for SR.

I don't want to bring this subject again, just know it is.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

Phil makes my point for me by acting the fool.

While Doug was trying to figure out how smart Einstein was, Phil went to
the Ig Noble prize at Harvard.

The winners in physics this years is a study on the balance pregnant
women are experiencing. So this means this study won the battle against
Ken Seto's Model Mechanics and Phil Bouchard's Finite Relativism, which
is good news.

The bad news are everybody seemed not agreeing on the money wasted used
for satellites being sent to Jupiter or Saturn, which is related to your
department as I understand.

Why don't you guys give up? It's over.

Another day of ****ing on the skyscraper, eh Phil?

Phil Bouchard wrote:

PD wrote:

So please point out the approximations.

"[...] assumptions":

- The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are
not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or
the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.

- Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of coordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or
by a moving body.


Once again according to FR *both* of these are wrong. Which is a bad
start for SR.

Really Phil, do you have any proof that both of those assumptions are wrong
in their relevant domains of applicability?


I don't want to bring this subject again, just know it is.

On Oct 5, 2:45*am, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

So please point out the approximations.

"[...] assumptions":

- The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are
not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or
the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.

- Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of coordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or
by a moving body.

I'm sorry, you said there were approximations involved. I still don't
see the approximations.


Once again according to FR *both* of these are wrong. *Which is a bad
start for SR.

Why is that a bad start for SR? You've got two theories which make
conflicting statements.
Now, how do you suppose that we would go about scientifically
determining which of the two is correct?


I don't want to bring this subject again, just know it is.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


Phil makes my point for me by acting the fool.


While Doug was trying to figure out how smart Einstein was, Phil went to
the Ig Noble prize at Harvard.

The winners in physics this years is a study on the balance pregnant
women are experiencing. So this means this study won the battle against
Ken Seto's Model Mechanics and Phil Bouchard's Finite Relativism, which
is good news.

The bad news are everybody seemed not agreeing on the money wasted used
for satellites being sent to Jupiter or Saturn, which is related to your
department as I understand.

Why don't you guys give up? It's over.

The fact that we are correct has something to do with that. Cranks
like you will continue to be ignored by the world.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

PD wrote:


So please point out the approximations.


"[...] assumptions":

- The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are
not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or
the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.

- Any ray of light moves in the 'stationary' system of coordinates with
the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or
by a moving body.


Once again according to FR *both* of these are wrong. Which is a bad
start for SR.

Once again, a bad start for FR.

I don't want to bring this subject again, just know it is.

Yes, we know FR is a bad joke and you hate to discuss it.

doug wrote:

The fact that we are correct has something to do with that. Cranks
like you will continue to be ignored by the world.

Whatever GR can do, FR can do better.

PD wrote:

I'm sorry, you said there were approximations involved. I still don't
see the approximations.

"An exact fudge factor is better than Einstein's assumptions [...]"

Why is that a bad start for SR? You've got two theories which make
conflicting statements.
Now, how do you suppose that we would go about scientifically
determining which of the two is correct?

By determining which one is more precise. Remember?

doug wrote:

[...]

Well, FR gives the wrong answer for gps. So FR is dead.

Doug wouldn't give GR $5 against FR and claims his certitude.