Finite Relativism Disproof

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


This is a nice combination of stupidity and lying on your part.


Doug thinks nature is composed of square roots.

The fact that phil has no knowledge of science at all is
wonderfully demonstrated by his ignorance of square roots.

Doug also silently
dismisses the fact GR has an accuracy cap.

Another example of ignorance on phil's part.

FR does not do anything right.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

This is a nice combination of stupidity and lying on your part.

Doug thinks nature is composed of square roots. Doug also silently
dismisses the fact GR has an accuracy cap. FR does not.

Wow, you still cry about "square roots"? That's amusing.

On Sep 4, 12:16*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

Science is always built incrementally on the work of others.
Newton's first law of motion belongs to Galileo, and his law of
gravity was built to satisfy Kepler's three laws.
Boldness in physics comes usually from taking an idea a little bit
further than what predecessors dared to do with the same idea, rather
than inventing something wholly new on a clean sheet of paper, and
this act sometimes results in the Nobel Prize. Just about every Nobel
Prize awarded comes from taking a pre-existing idea and carrying it
further than others.
I don't know where people get the idea this constitutes plagiarism.

You need referencing other people's work. *When you pretend Lorentz,
Hilbert, Minkowski and Mileva Maric have nothing to do or do not give
credit for then this backfires.

What credit do you think Hilbert is owed? They published virtually
simultaneously, and it was Hilbert that got the physics from Einstein,
and Hilbert's version of the equations is wrong. Have you referenced
all the prior work that fueled your work? And what work by Mileva
Maric would Einstein reference?


Science isn't about marketing yourself, it's about getting the job done.

On Sep 4, 12:25*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

If you have a point, you should just get it out and be done with it.

It is out and shared. *I asked for another review but it's harder making
people feel good about it even if FR offers more solutions than problems
and mysteries.

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?

I do not know the procedures but: do the postulates of FR make sense?

It's not about whether postulates make sense. The sensibility of
postulates is NOT how scientific theories are judged.
What gave you the idea that it should be so?

On Sep 4, 5:48*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:

No, quit kidding. Name someone who agrees with you.

Those who do not backup your claims.

Ah, so all those that are silent in backing someone else up must be
implicitly agreeing with YOU in their silence.
Aha.

Phil, you've become unhinged.

On Sep 4, 5:53*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:

GR will not be dismissed since it is sucessful. You have been
dismissed since you are a fool.

I'm not the one living in mysteries and arts.

What is mysterious to you? SR and GR are not mysterious. They are
rather straightforward.


"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." -- Albert Einstein

On Sep 4, 9:38*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
eric gisse wrote:

Let's see you calculate the GPS offset from first principles without the
invocation of arbitrary fudge factors.

Ha! *This will also make Eric Gisse more useful than Doug!

FR is based on the reverse engineering principle.

Aha, so do you know the difference between an empirical fit and a
physical model?

*If you do want the
any fudge factor then you need expanding the equation to the Universe
scale and beyond. *But at that point you'll figure out all of the hidden
mysteries the Universe has such as its size and its faith.

doug wrote:

The fact that phil has no knowledge of science at all is
wonderfully demonstrated by his ignorance of square roots.

Well no, here's looped algorithm:

; SQUARE ROOT OF A NUMBER
MODEL SMALL
..STACK 100
..DATA ; Data segment starts
NUM1 DW 0019H ; Initialize num1 to 0019
SQRT DW 01 DUP (?) ; Reserve 1 word of uninitialised data space to
offset sqrt
..CODE ; Code segment starts
START:
MOV AX,@DATA ;Initialize data segment
MOV DS,AX
MOV AX,NUM1 ;Move the number(num1) to AX
XOR BX,BX ;XOR is performed and result is stored in BX
MOV BX,0001H ;Initialize BX to 0001H
MOV CX,0001H ;Initialize CX to 0001H
LOOP1: SUB AX,BX ;AX=AX-BX
JZ LOOP2 ; If zero flag is zero jump to loop2
INC CX ; Increment CX by 1
ADD BX,0002H ;BX=BX+0002H
JMP LOOP1 ; Jump to loop1
INC CX ; Increment CX by 1
LOOP2: MOV SQRT,CX ; Store result

[...]

PD wrote:

What credit do you think Hilbert is owed? They published virtually
simultaneously, and it was Hilbert that got the physics from Einstein,
and Hilbert's version of the equations is wrong. Have you referenced
all the prior work that fueled your work?

FR roots are calculus and dynamics. All of the important details are
referenced.

And what work by Mileva
Maric would Einstein reference?

GR should be called Minkowski-Einstein GR and SR: Maric SR. Seriously.


"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --
Albert Einstein

PD wrote:

What is mysterious to you? SR and GR are not mysterious. They are
rather straightforward.

Wormholes, parallel universes, time travel in the past, natural square
roots, and so on.