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
  #21  
Old September 4th 09, 01:57 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:

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.


So Phil admits that he has no clue. But we know that.
  #22  
Old September 4th 09, 02:06 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Uncle Al
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 697
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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.


Hey stooopid - gaplessly nested thin shells are a solid sphere.
Pookie pookie. Folks short of puberty should not pontificate about
sex.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
  #23  
Old September 4th 09, 02:19 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:


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.


Well, phil, they both have been worked out for a long time.
You really should at least look at a book.
  #24  
Old September 4th 09, 02:20 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, phil, they both have been worked out for a long time.
You really should at least look at a book.


My curve fits neatly with the outside the sphere grav. potential.
  #25  
Old September 4th 09, 03:11 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Uncle Al
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 697
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

Well, phil, they both have been worked out for a long time.
You really should at least look at a book.


My curve fits neatly with the outside the sphere grav. potential.


Only far field. Even Newton knew better.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
  #26  
Old September 4th 09, 03:53 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

On Sep 3, 3:41*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
This is an official thread to confirm Finite Relativism remains
undisproven. *Once again the paper can be found at the aforementioned
address:http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...ci_physics.pdf

As noticed by Jim Black, section 1.4.1 has a slight error but is
irrelevant to the rest of the paper. *This was taken out in other versions.

Thank you,
-Phil


A theory does not earn recognition by virtue of its author being
unconvinced that it's wrong. This may be part of your problem.
  #27  
Old September 4th 09, 03:54 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

On Sep 3, 5:52*pm, 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.


Why?

*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.


  #28  
Old September 4th 09, 04:21 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

PD wrote:

Why?


To cut spaghetti talks and make my point.
  #29  
Old September 4th 09, 04:29 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

PD wrote:

A theory does not earn recognition by virtue of its author being
unconvinced that it's wrong. This may be part of your problem.


It's unfortunate lies and plagiarism is an easier approach...
  #30  
Old September 4th 09, 05:35 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

On Sep 3, 10:21*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

Why?


To cut spaghetti talks and make my point.


If you have a point, you should just get it out and be done with it.
If all you really want to do is make your point and not discuss, then
do it on a blog and not on a discussion group.
If there is something that is confusing ("spaghetti talks"), then have
you considered just ASKING, rather than proposing an alternative and
asking why your answer isn't right?
 




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 06:53 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.