A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Finite Relativism Disproof



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 4th 09, 12:15 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 342
Default 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.

  #12  
Old September 4th 09, 12:33 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

Sam Wormley wrote:


Comments: "Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof"
ISBN: 978-1441453105


That was fast...

1. The title is unfortunate, given the evidence for Dark Matter.


Where? All experiments failed proving it.

2. pg xi

"This [General Relativity] therefore implies time becomes
itself a dimension and causes the theory [General Relativity]
opening doors to ideas such as: ...

Cosmic acceleration faster than c"

It is too bad that this fellow, Mr. Santos, whom you acknowledge
for trying to disprove your theories, nor your father, whom you
claim has a M.Sc. Physics degree, did not catch the glaring errors
in the book. The book doesn't get anything right.

It is a common mistake of a kid elementary or high school to
confuse acceleration and velocity, as you did in this statement,
"Cosmic acceleration faster than c". Acceleration and velocity
are not comparable with the word 'faster'. That makes to sense
whatsoever!


I forgot correcting the term over there.

3. pg 14 (pages 1-12 appear to be missing). You state that the
Lorentz time transformation for an observer and a moving clock is

t_o = γ t_f

Should not that be

t_o = γ (t_f - x v/c^2)

where v is the velocity along the x-axis? Was not this discussed
in this forum some months ago?

Note that γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

4. pgs 16-17, Section 1.3. Twin Paradox

What you have written, Phil, is not Einstein's The Twin Paradox!
Furthermore, you claim the ship in your diagrams travels with respect
to a clock at a velocity greater than c.


It's the same thing.

Did ANYBODY proof this crap before you published it? What a
waste of paper and ink!


Tell that to the Superstring theorist!
  #13  
Old September 4th 09, 12:42 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default 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

  #14  
Old September 4th 09, 12:44 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default Finite Relativism Disproof



Phil Bouchard wrote:

Uncle Al wrote:


Crap attracts flies or it doesn't. It is still crap.

Post calculation of GPS correction.



Section 2.1.2:
http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...ci_physics.pdf


It gets the gps correction wrong.

Post derivation of periastron precession showing it scales as
(semi-major axis)^(-3).



As shown in the middle bottommost label after 3 revolutions, we see the
perihelion precession to the order of 10^-7 rad/cycle:
http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr.exe


It gets this wrong too.

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



The number of proven facts outstands the undone to show GR can be
replaced with FR.


Well, no since FR gets everything wrong.

The behavior of the photon will have similar effects
but I still question the exactitude of the solar mass. What about
refraction effects?


What about them? Do you want to show your ignorance there too?
  #15  
Old September 4th 09, 12:44 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

doug wrote:

[...]

So there is at least one disproof of your claim. And, it is not a
units problem. The formula is completely wrong. You have been
told this but, since you have never looked at any textbooks,
you are unable to understand it.


According to Doug, the inside the sphere gravitational potential is
already calculated.
  #16  
Old September 4th 09, 12:54 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

Sam Wormley wrote:

Tell me, Phil, how do you reconcile the differences between the
derivation of the Lorentz Transform and Wiki page you site? Are
you not curious? Can you do the derivation yourself? Do you have
the foggiest idea of what the Lorentz Transform is?

I am really disappointed in you!


I don't have time answering at this moment.
  #17  
Old September 4th 09, 01:03 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default Finite Relativism Disproof



Phil Bouchard wrote:
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.


You have ignored the mistakes already pointed out to you
and so we expect you will try to ignore the rest. There
is no talking physics to you since you are blind to science.

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.


So there is at least one disproof of your claim. And, it is not a
units problem. The formula is completely wrong. You have been
told this but, since you have never looked at any textbooks,
you are unable to understand it.
  #18  
Old September 4th 09, 01:05 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default Finite Relativism Disproof



Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

[...]

Well, no since FR gets everything wrong.



So I conclude you cannot bring any exact disproof and consequently agree
with FR.


FR has done nothing correctly. That is a fact which you want
to ignore in your delusions.


What about them? Do you want to show your ignorance there too?



It's very easy to do since the photon will be exposed for a longer time
close to the gravitational field.


Yes, you do want to show your ignorance there as well.
  #19  
Old September 4th 09, 01:16 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

doug wrote:

Well, yes it has. In fact it was done centuries ago. But
you would have to look at a textbook to know that.


Doug still confuses an empty shell with a solid sphere.
  #20  
Old September 4th 09, 01:55 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default Finite Relativism Disproof



Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

[...]

So there is at least one disproof of your claim. And, it is not a
units problem. The formula is completely wrong. You have been
told this but, since you have never looked at any textbooks,
you are unable to understand it.



According to Doug, the inside the sphere gravitational potential is
already calculated.


Well, yes it has. In fact it was done centuries ago. But
you would have to look at a textbook to know that.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 10:54 AM
Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof Phil Bouchard Astronomy Misc 4 January 26th 09 10:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.