Finite Relativism Disproof

On Sep 15, 1:47*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

And.... so?

It shows the world how irresponsible the community is if you do not
offer the necessary help.

I helped you by showing 20+ mistakes you made in your paper, before I
have even gotten to the physics. Sam and PD and Doug and others have
pointed out specific mistakes you have made, yet you would rather
argue than fix the mistakes.


Those decisions about what concepts are right and wrong are not
decided from the outset in science.
This is THE most common goofball mistake by amateurs and cranks about
science.
Validity of a scientific model is based SOLELY on how well it
*predicts* (not empirically fits -- important distinction) observable
and measurable quantities, as verified in experiment. Prior acceptance
or vetting of the conceptual framework is NOT required. You keep
missing the boat in terms of how science works, putting priority on
the wrong things.

FR is more than one or two square roots but predicts much more accurate
and valuable information necessary to understand the Universe.

If that were true, it would be up to YOU to prove it, without help
from everybody else.


You want to do things your way to warrant your idea more merit than
GR. But your approach then is no longer science.

We live in 2009, not 1905 my friend. *Serious research requires much
more processing power than you think.

Sam Wormley wrote:

Phil, when a concept, equation, graph or conclusion authored by you is
blatantly wrong, you think it is a disservice to you that I or anybody
else points that out?

Only the inside the sphere needs a slight adjustment. All other
equations are right and thus your comment on Amazon is spam.

These newsgroups--You came with a chip on your shoulder and informing
us that the physics and mathematics you cannot understand has been
overthrown by you.

FR has nothing to do with GR.

You cannot get even one calculation right. You have
no background in Newtonian or classical physics. You demonstrate no
understanding of intermediate mathematics. You act like a two year old
when interacting with others.

This is an irresponsible comment given you know who I am and my background.

The only mystery is why you repeatedly bloody your nose in a public
forum instead of question your own understanding of fundamentals. I've
really never understood the psychology of cranks and crackpots. I had
always assumed that somewhere along the line that they FAILED to
understand
some physics in either an academic setting or a personal one. As a
result,
they try to belittle what they FAILED to understand.

FR has nothing to do with GR.

Some actually convince themselves that they are right and EVERYBODY else
in the world is wrong, dead and alive.

You seem to believe a hundred years of experiments outstand the
likeliness of GR being plagiarized at 94%. In other words you seem to
believe experiments being made in quantity will dissolve measurable
probabilities.

Everything you write is
inconsistent,
but you don't have the smarts to see it.

You are offended because you think I come here to cover my ass. I come
here to make a simple contribution in the hope science pulls the train
once again.

Time for you to move on, Phil.

You obviously are not affected by the advancement of science anymore
since you are retired. You will do anything in your power to keep it
the way it is for the simple fact your pride remains unaffected.

I am 32 years old and I never was amazed to see elders acting as such.

PD wrote:

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?

For the exception of the minor inside the sphere division mistake and
some prepositions, FR is a perfect representation of the Universe.

I cannot switch back and forth my mindset anymore with my dayjob so you
guys can keep GR, its parallel universes, time travel in the past and
other mysteries.

Nevertheless GR still threw in the towel against FR.

eric gisse wrote:

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

I'll get the job done somewhere else and silently dismiss current
astrophysics.

eric gisse wrote:

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 ?

Doug failed teaching Eric Gisse in what context the equation is put in.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

eric gisse wrote:

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

I'll get the job done somewhere else and silently dismiss current
astrophysics.

Current astrophysics supposed to care what you think because...?

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

eric gisse wrote:

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 ?

Doug failed teaching Eric Gisse in what context the equation is put in.

What's the matter, Phil? Can't slug some basic analysis?

Get the **** out.

On Sep 21, 4:22*am, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

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?

For the exception of the minor inside the sphere division mistake and
some prepositions, FR is a perfect representation of the Universe.

I cannot switch back and forth my mindset anymore with my dayjob so you
guys can keep GR, its parallel universes, time travel in the past and
other mysteries.

OK, I'm glad you're devoting your time to those things where you have
some preparation and skill, and have stopped wasting time on pretenses
about doing physics, about which you have not taken similar efforts to
be prepared or skilled.

Nevertheless GR still threw in the towel against FR.

You feed your ego anyway you need to, Phil.

On Sep 21, 4:28*am, Phil Bouchard wrote:
eric gisse wrote:

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

I'll get the job done somewhere else and silently dismiss current
astrophysics.

I think you'll find that not many are really too concerned about what
you silently dismiss or not, Phil.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:


Phil, when a concept, equation, graph or conclusion authored by you is
blatantly wrong, you think it is a disservice to you that I or anybody
else points that out?


Only the inside the sphere needs a slight adjustment. All other
equations are right and thus your comment on Amazon is spam.

No, his comment is the truth. You get wrong answers for the gps and
all other things you try.

These newsgroups--You came with a chip on your shoulder and informing
us that the physics and mathematics you cannot understand has been
overthrown by you.


FR has nothing to do with GR.

That is correct. GR is science. FR is numerology.

You cannot get even one calculation right. You have
no background in Newtonian or classical physics. You demonstrate no
understanding of intermediate mathematics. You act like a two year old
when interacting with others.


This is an irresponsible comment given you know who I am and my background.

It is true. You lie and demonstrate your incompetence.

The only mystery is why you repeatedly bloody your nose in a public
forum instead of question your own understanding of fundamentals. I've
really never understood the psychology of cranks and crackpots. I had
always assumed that somewhere along the line that they FAILED to
understand
some physics in either an academic setting or a personal one. As a
result,
they try to belittle what they FAILED to understand.


FR has nothing to do with GR.

See above.

Some actually convince themselves that they are right and EVERYBODY
else
in the world is wrong, dead and alive.


You seem to believe a hundred years of experiments outstand the
likeliness of GR being plagiarized at 94%. In other words you seem to
believe experiments being made in quantity will dissolve measurable
probabilities.

You make Sam's point very well. You demonstrte yourself to be a fool.

Everything you write is inconsistent,
but you don't have the smarts to see it.


You are offended because you think I come here to cover my ass. I come
here to make a simple contribution in the hope science pulls the train
once again.

No, you want to get glory after having done nothing. FR is trash.


Time for you to move on, Phil.


You obviously are not affected by the advancement of science anymore
since you are retired. You will do anything in your power to keep it
the way it is for the simple fact your pride remains unaffected.

See, there is the typical crank paranoia.

I am 32 years old and I never was amazed to see elders acting as such.

At that age, you should know much better than to act like you do. You
act like a five year old with your silly comments and defense of your
ignorance of science.