Finite Relativism: Review Request

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...

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

There is nothing hard to understand, no have no idea. Au contraire you're
the one who is bailing out. I gave you CLEAR equations that make sense and
you still can't understand... Ultimate precision can only be found by
quantum mechanics.

Einstein came up with the equivalence principle. This is a weak
understanding because he basically just realized a = Gm / r^2, which was
already proven by Newton centuries ago. What he really did came up with is
space contraction. Unfortunately there is no space contraction but
gravitational time dilation.

What I wrote is serious and I am willing to agree on a contract to add
experimental evidence to the matter.

[..]

What I wrote is serious and I am willing to agree on a contract to add
experimental evidence to the matter.


If you have experimental evidence that GR is wrong, you should publish it
immediately.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

What I wrote is serious and I am willing to agree on a contract to add
experimental evidence to the matter.


If you have experimental evidence that GR is wrong, you should publish it
immediately.

There is evidence called: dark matter, wormholes, cosmological constant,
singularities, superstring, Dono. What I want is precision evidence. This
means a database of measurements.

"Phil Bouchard" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

What I wrote is serious and I am willing to agree on a contract to add
experimental evidence to the matter.


If you have experimental evidence that GR is wrong, you should publish it
immediately.

There is evidence called: dark matter, wormholes, cosmological constant,
singularities, superstring, Dono. What I want is precision evidence.
This means a database of measurements.



If you have a theory which explains what we do know anywhere near as well as
GR does, but makes different predictions to GR, and these are testable, then
you should describe exactly what tests you would need to be run, what GR
predicts, and what you predict.

If its even vaguely plausible, somebody will test it, if only for the Nobel
prize in physics that would result.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

What I wrote is serious and I am willing to agree on a contract to add
experimental evidence to the matter.


If you have experimental evidence that GR is wrong, you should publish it
immediately.


Hahahahahaha!
Invocation of proof #14!

Wackypedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
lists:

1 Direct proof
2 Proof by induction
3 Proof by transposition
4 Proof by contradiction
5 Proof by construction
6 Proof by exhaustion
7 Probabilistic proof
8 Combinatorial proof
9 Nonconstructive proof
10 Elementary proof

Not included:

11 Proof by "everybody knows" (proof by popular opinion).
12 Proof by "because I say so" (proof by assertion).
13 Proof by "it is written" (proof by appeal to authority).
14 Proof by "you prove it isn't!" (proof by simple denial).
15 Proof by "what about the tooth fairy?"(proof by irrelevance).
16 Proof by "You'r'n'asshole!" (proof by ad hominem attack).


Proof 16 is my favourite, I use it often. It is very effective when used
against proofs 11-15. Fight fire with fire, I say. Proofs 1-10 have me
defeated, they prevent me from using proofs 11-16 and I have to bite
the bullet and embarrass myself to win the argument (which I must do
at all costs upon pain of death by diarrhea of the verbal kind).

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

"Phil Bouchard" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

What I wrote is serious and I am willing to agree on a contract to add
experimental evidence to the matter.


If you have experimental evidence that GR is wrong, you should publish
it immediately.

There is evidence called: dark matter, wormholes, cosmological constant,
singularities, superstring, Dono. What I want is precision evidence.
This means a database of measurements.



If you have a theory which explains what we do know anywhere near as well
as GR does, but makes different predictions to GR, and these are testable,
then you should describe exactly what tests you would need to be run, what
GR predicts, and what you predict.

Yes, that would be Newtonian Mechanics.


If its even vaguely plausible, somebody will test it, if only for the
Nobel prize in physics that would result.

Oh really? How come I haven't got that prize yet?

Let's see. You just used proof number 14, which I counter with proof
number 16.

Wackypedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
lists:


1 Direct proof
2 Proof by induction
3 Proof by transposition
4 Proof by contradiction
5 Proof by construction
6 Proof by exhaustion
7 Probabilistic proof
8 Combinatorial proof
9 Nonconstructive proof
10 Elementary proof

Not included:

11 Proof by "everybody knows" (proof by popular opinion).
12 Proof by "because I say so" (proof by assertion).
13 Proof by "it is written" (proof by appeal to authority).
14 Proof by "you prove it isn't!" (proof by simple denial).
15 Proof by "what about the tooth fairy?"(proof by irrelevance).
16 Proof by "You'r'n'asshole!" (proof by ad hominem attack).


Proof 16 is my favourite, I use it often. It is very effective when used
against proofs 11-15. Fight fire with fire, I say. Proofs 1-10 have me
defeated, they prevent me from using proofs 11-16 and I have to bite
the bullet and embarrass myself to win the argument (which I must do
at all costs upon pain of death by diarrhea of the verbal kind).

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

"Phil Bouchard" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

What I wrote is serious and I am willing to agree on a contract to add
experimental evidence to the matter.


If you have experimental evidence that GR is wrong, you should publish
it immediately.

There is evidence called: dark matter, wormholes, cosmological constant,
singularities, superstring, Dono. What I want is precision evidence.
This means a database of measurements.



If you have a theory which explains what we do know anywhere near as well
as GR does, but makes different predictions to GR, and these are
testable, then you should describe exactly what tests you would need to
be run, what GR predicts, and what you predict.

Yes, that would be Newtonian Mechanics.


Newtonian mechanics doesn't explain what happens in particle acceleraters.





If its even vaguely plausible, somebody will test it, if only for the
Nobel prize in physics that would result.

Oh really? How come I haven't got that prize yet?


Because you haven't come up with a theory that meets the requirements I
listed.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

"Phil Bouchard" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

What I wrote is serious and I am willing to agree on a contract to
add experimental evidence to the matter.


If you have experimental evidence that GR is wrong, you should publish
it immediately.

There is evidence called: dark matter, wormholes, cosmological
constant, singularities, superstring, Dono. What I want is precision
evidence. This means a database of measurements.



If you have a theory which explains what we do know anywhere near as
well as GR does, but makes different predictions to GR, and these are
testable, then you should describe exactly what tests you would need to
be run, what GR predicts, and what you predict.

Yes, that would be Newtonian Mechanics.


Newtonian mechanics doesn't explain what happens in particle acceleraters.

Use of proof 15, countered by proof 14:

Oh yes it does.
and by proof 16 ,
Oh yes it does, you ****ing moron.
See, that doubly proves you are wrong.


Feel free to use any of proofs 1-10 and I might believe you.
Have you explained Einstein's simple algebra to me yet?
After all, you are the great teacher and it is very simple.


Wackypedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
lists:


1 Direct proof
2 Proof by induction
3 Proof by transposition
4 Proof by contradiction
5 Proof by construction
6 Proof by exhaustion
7 Probabilistic proof
8 Combinatorial proof
9 Nonconstructive proof
10 Elementary proof

Not included:

11 Proof by "everybody knows" (proof by popular opinion).
12 Proof by "because I say so" (proof by assertion).
13 Proof by "it is written" (proof by appeal to authority).
14 Proof by "you prove it isn't!" (proof by simple denial).
15 Proof by "what about the tooth fairy?"(proof by irrelevance).
16 Proof by "You'r'n'asshole!" (proof by ad hominem attack).


Proof 16 is my favourite, I use it often. It is very effective when used
against proofs 11-15. Fight fire with fire, I say. Proofs 1-10 have me
defeated, they prevent me from using proofs 11-16 and I have to bite
the bullet and embarrass myself to win the argument (which I must do
at all costs upon pain of death by diarrhea of the verbal kind).

Why do particle accelerators work if SR is wrong ?

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
Why do particle accelerators work if SR is wrong ?

Who do bicycles work if Santa Claus doesn't give them to kids at Xmas?
Anyway, LHC DOESN'T work. It broke the first time anyone tried it.

I bet you £100 you hate having your illogical nonsense shoved back up
your arse, you snipping little tord.

Webb family? What are you, the baby?