A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Finite Relativism: Review Request



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 1st 09, 05:55 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Finite Relativism: Review Request

Greetings:

I have polished my equations inside my book and I would like to know if
anybody is willing reviewing it for a price. The mathematics are perfectly
valid but I would like further experimental assertions.

To introduce its concept better, here are its postulates:

+ The incident gravity flux crossing a body at high velocities relative
to its source induces dilation of time
+ The gravitational acceleration residuum is also responsible and
exactly proportional to the dilation of time
+ A mass reference frame only can rotate if overwhelmed by a greater
gravitational field

Which will lead to the consequent precepts:

+ The speed of light and the time dilation are correlative
+ Galactic scale masses are subject to their own frame of reference

And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation formulas
respectively used a

+ 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2)
+ (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2

One of a very controversial findings relates to the time taken for a light
ray traveling from here to Alpha Centauri. Albert Einstein speculated 4
years and I estimate at least 7 days... but far from 4 years! The proof can
be found inside the book.

What we see inside the solar system is negligible but outside is very
different. The latest version can be found he
https://www.createspace.com/3370163


Regards,
-Phil


  #2  
Old March 1st 09, 06:10 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Dono
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 270
Default Finite Relativism: Review Request

On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:


And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation formulas
respectively used a

+ 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2)
+ (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2


You are still the same idiot
  #3  
Old March 1st 09, 06:22 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Finite Relativism: Review Request


"Dono" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:


And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation formulas
respectively used a

+ 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2)
+ (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2


You are still the same idiot


Say something smarter, please.


  #4  
Old March 1st 09, 06:28 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Finite Relativism: Review Request


"Dono" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:


And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation formulas
respectively used a

+ 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2)
+ (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2


You are still the same idiot


Let's get this over with. Lorentz transformations doesn't make any sense
and what these are represent ratios over their maximas if you haven't
noticed yet. Time dilation and gravitational time dilation are different in
the sense the former is incident and the latter is a result of acceleration.
But the details doesn't matter, just pass on to the next step in your
understandings.


  #5  
Old March 1st 09, 06:28 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Greg Neill[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 605
Default Finite Relativism: Review Request

Phil Bouchard wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:


And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation

formulas
respectively used a

+ 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2)
+ (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2


You are still the same idiot


Say something smarter, please.


You are steadfastly and undeniably the very same idiot.


  #6  
Old March 1st 09, 06:38 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Greg Neill[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 605
Default Finite Relativism: Review Request

Phil Bouchard wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:


And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation

formulas
respectively used a

+ 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2)
+ (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2


You are still the same idiot


Let's get this over with. Lorentz transformations doesn't make any sense


Translation: "I don't understand relativity, the math is too hard."

and what these are represent ratios over their maximas if you haven't
noticed yet.


Word salad.

Time dilation and gravitational time dilation are different in
the sense the former is incident and the latter is a result of

acceleration.

More salad. Where's the beef?

But the details doesn't matter, just pass on to the next step in your
understandings.


Some sort of philosophical jibe???


  #7  
Old March 1st 09, 06:48 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Dono
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 270
Default Finite Relativism: Review Request

On Feb 28, 9:28 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message

...

On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:


And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation formulas
respectively used a


+ 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2)
+ (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2


You are still the same idiot


Let's get this over with. Lorentz transformations doesn't make any sense


You mean they don't make any sense to YOU, right?
What can be done, you are a hopeless imbecile, how can the Lorentz
transforms remedy this situation?

  #8  
Old March 1st 09, 06:55 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Finite Relativism: Review Request

On Feb 28, 7:55*pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
[snip idiocy]

Nobody will ever buy your book. Go away.

  #9  
Old March 1st 09, 07:01 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Dono
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 270
Default Finite Relativism: Review Request

On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:

What we see inside the solar system is negligible but outside is very
different. The latest version can be found hehttps://www.createspace.com/3370163

Regards,
-Phil


Ahh, I see, you got conned into spending your money for a self-
published book that no one buys :-)

  #10  
Old March 1st 09, 11:24 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Finite Relativism: Review Request


"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:3Ppql.536829$TT4.412269@attbi_s22...
This is pure garbage! Cripes, even this statement is wrong, "Cosmic
acceleration faster than c", comparing acceleration to speed! What
lunacy!

"In this book a new mathematical model is introduced that resolves
and explains behaviors previously stated. Several misunderstood
concepts of the Universe are then being clarified following our
model, which accepts tunneling effects and also includes a disproof
on the needfulness of the ambient dark matter populating galaxies".


Oh, there is misunderstanding all right, GROSS misunderstanding
on the part of the author, Phil Bouchard.



Up to know this is the smartest comment I have heard... You guys need to go
back in school and learn carefully the easiest part of mathematics called:
calculus. Seriously. Are there any mathematicians over here or should I
move on to the mathematics newsgroup?

You guys are ridiculizing physics. I am offering you something that make
sense over someone else's blunders and incompetence in maths or engineering
(applied science) and all I can hear is how I can't understand Lorentz
transformations. First Mr. Lorentz isn't even a mathematician so I don't
see what I can learn from him. Seriously, you are ridiculising the
advancement of science everyday.

I'm telling you emiiting a message to Alpha Centauri takes between 7 days
and 4 years but certainly not the latter. Are you guys payed by some
community to maintain Einstein's pride over the years?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
25% OFF -- Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof Phil Bouchard Astronomy Misc 0 January 28th 09 10:54 AM
Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof Phil Bouchard Astronomy Misc 4 January 26th 09 10:00 PM
Request for Review of a pre-print book titled, "Fundamental Nature ofMatter and Fields" GSS Astronomy Misc 74 July 12th 08 04:34 PM
[WWW] Request for Review of a pre-print book titled, "Fundamental Nature of GSS Research 0 May 21st 08 10:09 AM
Is the universe infinite or finite? [email protected] Astronomy Misc 21 December 17th 05 10:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.