Finite Relativism Disproof

doug wrote:

[...]

Yes, we know you run away and hide when your mistakes are pointed out.

Doug is actually the one responsible for throwing the towel in against
FR and making GR officially defeated.


"F(x) / F(x) != 1" -- Doug

"Science is for losers" -- Doug

"If you doubt Einstein, go see a therapist" -- PD

Sam Wormley wrote:

Exactly Wrong!



Customer Reviews
Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof: General Relativity Reegineered
http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Relativ...pr_product_top


'My name appears in the Acknowledgments of this book, therefore, I should
contribute a review. "Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof" is an

[...]

I was obviously not expecting any positive comments from Mr. Wormley but
I wasn't expecting negative ones. This is quite irresponsible from his
part.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:


Exactly Wrong!



Customer Reviews
Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof: General Relativity
Reegineered
http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Relativ...pr_product_top


'My name appears in the Acknowledgments of this book, therefore, I
should
contribute a review. "Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof" is an


[...]

I was obviously not expecting any positive comments from Mr. Wormley but
I wasn't expecting negative ones. This is quite irresponsible from his
part.

Sam tells the truth. He is being very responsible. FR is a joke.

On Sep 18, 9:10*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Robert Higgins wrote:

[...]

I have not even begun to list the major scientific errors of your
paper. If you can't even write straightforward English sentences, what
makes anyone think you have a brilliant new theory that is more
brilliant than anything of Einstein?

Thanks Mr. Higgins, I missed this post.

The mathematical side of the paper contains a minor mistake as far as
the inside the sphere calculation is concerned, but all other
calculations are perfectly correct. *The inside the sphere wasn't
necessary but eventually will be for the version of the equation without
any fudge factor.

I do agree I am not using the standard expected format and many thanks
for the clarifications. *But I guarantee all mathematics, from the
exception of the inside the sphere, are exact.

I am happy having shared it here but I cannot afford going on because of
time constraints.

I hope you enjoyed your dabble before you gave up on the exercise.

On Sep 18, 9:14*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

I don't run executables I don't compile myself, after looking at the
code. You can send me the code and I'll compile it.

My name is written in the titlebar so I am obviously not going to add a
virus in it.

As for what's shown in the bottommost middle label, I see lots of
claims from Nigerian princes. It is, of course, just as trustworthy.

Morover, you earlier claimed that FR predicts noncontinuous
precession. Now you claim that you've got a label that says the
opposite. Hmmmm....

I said the orbit of Mercury isn't rotation, but wobbling. *The
precession is constant.

Not what you said, Phil. But feel free to foam on.

On Sep 19, 1:16*am, Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:

[...]

Yes, we know you run away and hide when your mistakes are pointed out.

Doug is actually the one responsible for throwing the towel in against
FR and making GR officially defeated.

"F(x) / F(x) != 1" -- Doug

"Science is for losers" -- Doug

"If you doubt Einstein, go see a therapist" -- PD

The words inside the quotation marks and attributed to me, I never
said, Phil.
Do you lie often?
Do you think this has something to do with your present situation?

On Sep 19, 1:24*am, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

* Exactly Wrong!

Customer Reviews
Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof: General Relativity Reegineered
http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Relativ...proof/dp/14414...

*'My name appears in the Acknowledgments of this book, therefore, I should
* contribute a review. "Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof" is an

[...]

I was obviously not expecting any positive comments from Mr. Wormley but
I wasn't expecting negative ones. *This is quite irresponsible from his
part.

Why would you take a negative comment to be irresponsible, Phil?
Do you believe that criticism is irresponsible?
Do you believe that people not spoonfeeding things to you to which you
believe you are entitled is also irresponsible?

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Robert Higgins wrote:

[...]

I have not even begun to list the major scientific errors of your
paper. If you can't even write straightforward English sentences, what
makes anyone think you have a brilliant new theory that is more
brilliant than anything of Einstein?

Thanks Mr. Higgins, I missed this post.

The mathematical side of the paper contains a minor mistake as far as
the inside the sphere calculation is concerned, but all other
calculations are perfectly correct. The inside the sphere wasn't
necessary but eventually will be for the version of the equation without
any fudge factor.

I do agree I am not using the standard expected format and many thanks
for the clarifications. But I guarantee all mathematics, from the
exception of the inside the sphere, are exact.

I am happy having shared it here but I cannot afford going on because of
time constraints.

Translation: "Nobody is buying my bull**** for the n+1'th time around, so
I'll sell it somewhere else"

doug wrote:
[...]


Sam tells the truth. He is being very responsible. FR is a joke.

Sam not only looks like, but acts like, the man who runs the physics
teaching labs up here. It is actually pretty remarkable, because if I
imagine him narrating Sam's posts...it just works perfectly.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

[...]

Yes, we know you run away and hide when your mistakes are pointed out.

Doug is actually the one responsible for throwing the towel in against
FR and making GR officially defeated.


"F(x) / F(x) != 1" -- Doug

What's F(x) / F(x) for F(x) = sin(x), Phil?

What about when x=0?

Or how about F(x) = sin(x) / x ?



"Science is for losers" -- Doug

"If you doubt Einstein, go see a therapist" -- PD