|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
This is an official thread to confirm Finite Relativism remains
undisproven. Once again the paper can be found at the aforementioned address: http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...ci_physics.pdf As noticed by Jim Black, section 1.4.1 has a slight error but is irrelevant to the rest of the paper. This was taken out in other versions. Thank you, -Phil |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:41:55 -0700, Phil Bouchard
wrote: This is an official thread to confirm Finite Relativism remains undisproven. Once again the paper can be found at the aforementioned address: http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...ci_physics.pdf As noticed by Jim Black, section 1.4.1 has a slight error but is irrelevant to the rest of the paper. This was taken out in other versions. Thank you, -Phil Could you please clarify something from that pdf: First let’s define its postulates: The kinetic energy of body relative to its maxima induces dilation of time. There is a grammatical error in that sentence (article missing) The kinetic energy of a body relative to its maxima induces dilation of time What are the maxima (plural) of a body (singular)? w. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
You still have no clue about the inside the sphere solution
so that section is nonsense. You still get the time dilation wrong. You have done nothing right. Your comment about not needing to do a math proof is hilarious and shows you are a complete buffoon when it comes to science. Phil Bouchard wrote: This is an official thread to confirm Finite Relativism remains undisproven. Once again the paper can be found at the aforementioned address: http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...ci_physics.pdf As noticed by Jim Black, section 1.4.1 has a slight error but is irrelevant to the rest of the paper. This was taken out in other versions. Thank you, -Phil |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
Doug is lying and he simply hopes he doesn't have to learn any calculus.
Dirk Van de moortel wrote: I agree that if anything deserved a top-posted reply, it was this one. Dirk Vdm |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: Doug is lying and he simply hopes he doesn't have to learn any calculus. Phil considers that him posting completely wrong answers and claiming that proves something is somehow doing science. Phil does not know math or science and, if you read the "paper", you can laugh at his pitiful attempt to do the inside the sphere calculation. He gets the answer completely wrong but has no clue why. The rest of his posting is similarly incompetent. Dirk Van de moortel wrote: I agree that if anything deserved a top-posted reply, it was this one. Dirk Vdm |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
doug wrote:
Phil considers that him posting completely wrong answers and claiming that proves something is somehow doing science. Phil does not know math or science and, if you read the "paper", you can laugh at his pitiful attempt to do the inside the sphere calculation. He gets the answer completely wrong but has no clue why. The rest of his posting is similarly incompetent. Well the goal of this thread is to disprove FR. But we all noticed you ran out of scientific arguments a long time ago so don't feed on things I already stated. The measurement unit problem of the inside a sphere is a simple mass density division error I need to correct. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote:
This is an official thread to confirm Finite Relativism remains undisproven. [snip crap] Crap attracts flies or it doesn't. It is still crap. Post calculation of GPS correction. Post derivation of periastron precession showing it scales as (semi-major axis)^(-3). Post your derivation of acceleration of falling light vs. a massed body. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ Section 3.4.1, Figure 5 idiot -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote:
[snip all] Not being able to convince a crank that he is wrong does not make the crank right. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
On Sep 3, 3:41*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
This is an official thread to confirm Finite Relativism remains undisproven. *Once again the paper can be found at the aforementioned address:http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...ci_physics.pdf As noticed by Jim Black, section 1.4.1 has a slight error but is irrelevant to the rest of the paper. *This was taken out in other versions. Thank you, -Phil A theory does not earn recognition by virtue of its author being unconvinced that it's wrong. This may be part of your problem. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Finite Relativism Undisproven | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 2 | August 26th 09 03:02 PM |
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 1366 | May 2nd 09 12:04 AM |
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof | Eric Gisse | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 3rd 09 06:14 AM |
25% OFF -- Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 28th 09 09:54 AM |
Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 4 | January 26th 09 09:00 PM |