Finite Relativism: Review Request

Phil Bouchard wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:kJFql.593656$yE1.471293@attbi_s21...

105.184% of 1 second.

Bzzzzt! Wrong answer!


You're telling me it's nothing more than: 102.56%?

So if your "theory" changes predictions at this rate,
then you are joining the Henri/Ralph school of dynamic
theories.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:6IEql.537855$TT4.178561@attbi_s22...

Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...age=node5.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...-1/frctfrq.png

Mo
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_b...tml#Relativity


I'll be back later.


Now Sam, his theory will generate a mysterious new parameter
to get the right answer. Phil has refused to look at any
experimental results so far.

On Mar 1, 3:53*pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
"doug" wrote in message

et...



So you have never studied any physics. *That is pretty clear.

I studied electrical, optical and basic relativistic physics. *The funny
thing I keep asking questions to PhDs. and they bail out and don't respond.
This explains why I'm here.

The math
does not tell us what the world is, the world tells us. *The use of
the math is to model the experiments. Math proofs are useless in the
real world. *Physics descriptions are useful. *Lots of cranks come
here and claim to be able to show math proofs of relativity being
wrong. It does not work that way. *You still have shown nothing
useful from your "theory".

I shown sending messages to Alpha Centauri takes at least 7 days, dark
matter doesn't exist, so are singularities, natural wormholes and length
contractions. *Where's the problem?

Observation.


You have not answered Sam's *question.
Evasion is another sign of cranks. *Are you afraid to answer
his question?

Hahahaha... *If I spent so much time in formulating the theory what makes
you think I am not convinced? *I will answer Sam's questions but I can't
work full time on it.

On Mar 1, 3:55*pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

news:kJFql.593656$yE1.471293@attbi_s21...



105.184% of 1 second.

* Bzzzzt! Wrong answer!

You're telling me it's nothing more than: 102.56%?

Throwing numbers in the air tells me you are clueless.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"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.


Lots of others have been in operation for 50+ years, and in any event for
the period that LHC is operational, the accelerated particles behaved
exactly as per SR and not according to Newtonian dynamics.


Not had much engineering experience, have you?
Do go on and explain the simple algebra of the
derivation of the cuckoo malformations, I'm willing
to learn.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif




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


So, if SR is wrong, how come particle accelerators operate according to SR
and not Newtonian dynamics?

Explain it to me. Explain the simple algebra of the
derivation of the cuckoo malformations, I'm willing
to learn.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

"Androcles" wrote in message
news

"bill" wrote in message
...

"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: wormholes, cosmological constant,
singularities.
All of which are predicted by/consequences of SR/GR.
There is evidence of bright green flying elephants laying eggs in
black holes,


No there is not.


all of which are prophesied by/consequences of SR/GR -
including your insanity.


No they are not.

Do go on and explain the simple algebra of the
derivation of the cuckoo malformations, I'm willing
to learn.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"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.


Lots of others have been in operation for 50+ years, and in any event for
the period that LHC is operational, the accelerated particles behaved
exactly as per SR and not according to Newtonian dynamics.


Not had much engineering experience, have you?
Do go on and explain the simple algebra of the
derivation of the cuckoo malformations, I'm willing
to learn.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif



What is your explanation of why particle accelerators obey the laws of SR
and not those of Newtonian dynamics?

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

"Androcles" wrote in message
news

"bill" wrote in message
...

"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: wormholes, cosmological constant,
singularities.
All of which are predicted by/consequences of SR/GR.
There is evidence of bright green flying elephants laying eggs in
black holes,


No there is not.


all of which are prophesied by/consequences of SR/GR -
including your insanity.


No they are not.

Do go on and explain the simple algebra of the
derivation of the cuckoo malformations, I'm willing
to learn.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif





What is your explanation of why particle accelerators obey the laws of SR
and not those of Newtonian dynamics?

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"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.


Lots of others have been in operation for 50+ years, and in any event
for the period that LHC is operational, the accelerated particles
behaved exactly as per SR and not according to Newtonian dynamics.


Not had much engineering experience, have you?
Do go on and explain the simple algebra of the
derivation of the cuckoo malformations, I'm willing
to learn.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif



What is your explanation of why particle accelerators obey the laws of SR
and not those of Newtonian dynamics?

Do go on and explain the simple algebra of the
derivation of the cuckoo malformations, I'm willing
to learn, you useless argumentative ****.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

"Androcles" wrote in message
news
"bill" wrote in message
...

"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: wormholes, cosmological constant,
singularities.
All of which are predicted by/consequences of SR/GR.
There is evidence of bright green flying elephants laying eggs in
black holes,


No there is not.


all of which are prophesied by/consequences of SR/GR -
including your insanity.


No they are not.

Do go on and explain the simple algebra of the
derivation of the cuckoo malformations, I'm willing
to learn.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif





What is your explanation of why particle accelerators obey the laws of SR
and not those of Newtonian dynamics?

Do go on and explain the simple algebra of the
derivation of the cuckoo malformations, I'm willing
to learn, you useless argumentative dickhead.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif