Finite Relativism completed

Greg Neill wrote:

[...]

Did you even bother to look at the literature to
see how the calculation was done? No, I thought
not. Typical "Math is Hard" Phil.

Go back on Ste-Catherine and drink it up until 3:00, Greg! It's 10
minutes away!

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


But not accurate. So FR is wrong yet again.


You are either depressed, jealous or both.

Laughing at your delusions is always a good way to cheer up.
Your hatred and jealousy of Einstein are pretty sad though
to anyone concerned with your mental health.

What I can't tell is the one
who really is and the one pretending to be.

My measurements are so close, they can't be wrong.

This is an amazingly stupid statement. You are wrong by at least a
factor of two and maybe not even having the correct sign.

This is just like the fact that you get the gravitational correction
wrong for the surface of the earth and the gps.


If you look at how
the mass of the Sun is measured, it is done by solving it out of the
planet's orbits:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/LeonVaysburd.shtml

So please tell me how can that be done, knowing the perihelions are
precessed? What about the mass of planets themselves?

You could read a textbook but so far you have refused to do that.

doug wrote:

[...]

This is an amazingly stupid statement. You are wrong by at least a
factor of two and maybe not even having the correct sign.

The difference is constant and therefore it is right.

[...]

So please tell me how can that be done, knowing the perihelions are
precessed? What about the mass of planets themselves?

You could read a textbook but so far you have refused to do that.

Which means you do not know or silently agree it is wrong.

Thanks for your input Doug, you are helping tremendously science getting
somewhere. The history books should from now on talk about Newton,
Einstein and "doug".

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

[...]

This is an amazingly stupid statement. You are wrong by at least a
factor of two and maybe not even having the correct sign.


The difference is constant and therefore it is right.

There is a difference therefore it is wrong.

[...]

So please tell me how can that be done, knowing the perihelions are
precessed? What about the mass of planets themselves?


You could read a textbook but so far you have refused to do that.


Which means you do not know or silently agree it is wrong.

Phil is lazy and lies. Not a good combination to help his delusions.

Thanks for your input Doug, you are helping tremendously science getting
somewhere. The history books should from now on talk about Newton,
Einstein and "doug".

Science history will never talk about phil.

On May 29, 9:06*pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
"doug" wrote in message

news


But not accurate. So FR is wrong yet again.

No because it does not consider other planets either, and yet it is pretty
close already.

There is no way Albert Einstein could have calculated all of these factors
simultaneously... even by plagiarizing Hilbert.

It had been done previously, for all those planets. You know not of
what you speak.

PD

PD wrote:

It had been done previously, for all those planets. You know not of
what you speak.

PD

"There is no way Albert Einstein could have calculated all of these
factors simultaneously".

On Jun 1, 9:04*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

It had been done previously, for all those planets. You know not of
what you speak.

PD

"There is no way Albert Einstein could have calculated all of these
factors simultaneously".

Too ****ing stupid to read the paper in which the calculation is done,
obviously.

On Jun 2, 12:04*am, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

It had been done previously, for all those planets. You know not of
what you speak.

PD

"There is no way Albert Einstein could have calculated all of these
factors simultaneously".

He didn't have to. It had been done BEFORE Einstein.

PD