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
  #21  
Old March 1st 09, 04:24 PM 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 Mar 1, 2:24 am, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:


You guys are ridiculizing physics.


"Ridiculizing"?
Nah, we are riduculing YOU :-)
  #22  
Old March 1st 09, 05:39 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default Finite Relativism: Review Request



Phil Bouchard wrote:

"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?


Remember that math is not physics. It is clear you do not understand
physics either. You did not respond to Sam's comment above about your
misunderstanding of the difference between acceleration and speed. If
you are ignorant of that basic point, you can contribute nothing.

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.


This is a pretty stupid comment. Your mother was not a mathematician so
you claim you cannot learn anything from her?

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?

The cry of the crank claiming there must be a conspiracy.


  #23  
Old March 1st 09, 05:39 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default Finite Relativism: Review Request



Phil Bouchard wrote:

"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.


Remember when you were given experimental evidence and you could not
understand it? Have you tried looking again?
  #24  
Old March 1st 09, 05:41 PM posted to alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default Finite Relativism: Review Request



Androcles wrote:

"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.


You really are grasping at straws just to have something stupid to
say when you realize you are wrong.

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?





  #25  
Old March 1st 09, 07:54 PM 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


"doug" wrote in message
news

Remember that math is not physics. It is clear you do not understand
physics either. You did not respond to Sam's comment above about your
misunderstanding of the difference between acceleration and speed. If
you are ignorant of that basic point, you can contribute nothing.


I know better about the difference between acceleration and speed. Why do
you think I came up with predictions and you haven't? What I meant in that
statement was that acceleration can drag the velocities to be greater than
c.

This is a pretty stupid comment. Your mother was not a mathematician so
you claim you cannot learn anything from her?


Actually I'm starting to question the credibility of astrophysics. I'm not
sure were it stands in the science department.

The cry of the crank claiming there must be a conspiracy.


I don't claim conspiracy, I claim stupidity.


  #26  
Old March 1st 09, 07:56 PM 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 Mar 1, 10:54 am, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
What I meant in that
statement was that acceleration can drag the velocities to be greater than
c.


Umm, no. They cannot. This is why the only people who bought your
"book" is you and yourself.



  #27  
Old March 1st 09, 07:59 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
gb[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,501
Default Finite Relativism: Review Request

On Feb 28, 9:55*pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
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 hehttps://www.createspace.com/3370163

Regards,
-Phil


Why do Americans 'one star' and oppress writers? He published a book.
How can
book writers be lowered, sure a book carries ridicule aspects and
stuff by the
public, but I don't see an educated environment here, more cameras of
Orwell
are pointing on people.


  #28  
Old March 1st 09, 08:00 PM 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


"doug" wrote in message
news

Remember when you were given experimental evidence and you could not
understand it? Have you tried looking again?


We were referring to time dilation based on high velocities. First there is
no way Lorentz time tranformations make any sense so I proposed to measure
the Doppler effect at high velocities around the Earth using a wavelength
meter. Remember?

Just take that square root away and we will all live in a happier world.


  #29  
Old March 1st 09, 08:02 PM 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 Mar 1, 11:00 am, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:


Just take that square root away and we will all live in a happier world.


:-) :-)

  #30  
Old March 1st 09, 08:06 PM 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


"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

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.


Ok then, I will. Anybody interested in supervising it?


 




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 09:56 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.