Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

"Phil Bouchard" wrote in message
...

"doug" wrote in message
et...

[...]

Your stupidity is not a scientific arguement. You have only shown you
have no clue what relativity is. You have presented no evidence of any
problems just your dislikes. Those do not get you anywhere in science.
CS maybe but not science.

You guys are skipping calculus and jumping straight to pride and glory by
following Einstein's, his miracles and propheties. I proved 99% of what I
said and bring on your particle accelerator measurements because your
equations can be easily replace since time dilation will affect
acceleration as much as "increasing" the mass.



Does your theory conserve momentum?

Does it provide the same results for physical experiments irrespective of
choice of inertial reference frame?

Post your equations for transforming between inertial reference frames and
lets have a look.

"Dorn.Strich" wrote in message
...
On Mar 20, 2:35 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Dorn.Strich wrote:
On Mar 20, 3:15 pm, doug wrote:
Dorn.Strich wrote:
On Mar 20, 1:57 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Dorn.Strich wrote:
Sam, you are correct. In my dreams you are familiar with EPR. In
reality, obviously you are not.
Let me clarify a few things. Do you misinterpret Einstein's
statement
of "spooky action at a distance" as implying he believed in non-
locality?
Also, do you agree with PD's statement that "non-local effects do
not
propagate non-locally but locally" ?
Specifically, David, what prediction of relativity is contradicted
by the quantum mechanics or entanglement?
You are really dumb Sam. Here's my answer again:
"We need not go into predictions.
So strich cannot show any contradictions. Not that that is surprising.

It is all simple and

straightforward. The very postulate of relativity that light speed is
constant and is the maximum velocity is contradicted by non-locality
of QM."
And then, strich demonstrates his lack of knowledge of relativity.

Here is the really shor dumb-down answer: QM contradicts the logical
(if any) framework of relativity.
Strich is surprised that his unsupported insults against everyone do
not immediately make everyone agree with him.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey Doug, the question was for Sam. But I guess you got so used to
taking food from the next guy in prison that it is second nature to
you.

David, yous CANNOT articulate what prediction of relativity is
contradicted by the quantum mechanics or entanglement!

One last time, David, just what is it you think falsifies a prediction
of relativity. Can you cite an experiment or observation?

If you cannot articulate your argument... you don't have one!- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -

You don't know how to count! You said 'last time' twice.

I answered your question, but your skull was too thick to allow it in.

Let me give it another try:

HELLO SAM? IS ANYBODY HOME? :-)

*****************
Actually, I couldn't see where you cited an experiment or any evidence
whatsoever that QM's "spooky action at a distance" contradicts SR either.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
Instead of claiming that "time dilation is enough to explain all
relativistic effects", why don't you produce your equations for changing
inertial reference frame and we can see?

Personally, I can't see how you could have time dilation and conservation
of mass/energy without having length contraction as well, as there would
be no energy or momentum conservation.

I just disproved SR through its length contraction and gave you a clear
estimate of a light beam traveling between 2 galaxies. This means something
is wrong is your formulation.

I might look it up but chances are pretty high I just program my theory and
share it with everybody else. I am confirming astrophysics isn't as serious
as I thought after unbiased contributions, submissions and closer
inspections.

[...]

"Phil Bouchard" wrote in message
...

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...
Instead of claiming that "time dilation is enough to explain all
relativistic effects", why don't you produce your equations for changing
inertial reference frame and we can see?

Personally, I can't see how you could have time dilation and conservation
of mass/energy without having length contraction as well, as there would
be no energy or momentum conservation.

I just disproved SR through its length contraction and gave you a clear
estimate of a light beam traveling between 2 galaxies. This means
something is wrong is your formulation.


No you didn't, and no it doesn't.

I might look it up but chances are pretty high I just program my theory
and share it with everybody else. I am confirming astrophysics isn't as
serious as I thought after unbiased contributions, submissions and closer
inspections.

I see. You haven't got a set of equations showing time dilation alone is
sufficient to explain relativitistic effects. Can't say I am surprised;
apart from the fact that you are a crank, a set of transformations that
included time dilation but not length contraction could not conserve
mass/energy or momentum, and these are directly observed relativistic
effects.

If you have an alternative set of transformations to those in SR which
explain the relativistic effects we see in particle accelerators every day,
then post them.

If you haven't, don't lie and say you do.

Do you?

"Phil Bouchard" wrote in message
...

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
m...

Haha indeed. Phil *STILL* hasn't spotted the flaws in
his setup that makes it a washout for demonstrating SR
effects.

You are excessively confident because neither any precondition on the way
the balls are launched nor the measured length taken in picture have any
relevance for your defense.



You asked a question as to what would be observed if two cannons fired
cannonballs connected by a rope and at near the speed of light at almost the
same time.

I answered your question.

Do you understand now what would be observed? Did you have any doubts its
true, and if so, what do you think will happen differently in the thought
experiment you have described?

Phil Bouchard wrote:
"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

Instead of claiming that "time dilation is enough to explain all
relativistic effects", why don't you produce your equations for changing
inertial reference frame and we can see?

Personally, I can't see how you could have time dilation and conservation
of mass/energy without having length contraction as well, as there would
be no energy or momentum conservation.


I just disproved SR through its length contraction

No, you said you do not like length contraction. That is an opinion, not
a scientific argument. You have presented nothing here that in any
way attacks length contraction.

and gave you a clear
estimate of a light beam traveling between 2 galaxies.

You gave random numbers with lots of digits. We can generate those
as well but that means nothing.

This means something
is wrong is your formulation.

No, we can generate random numbers and tell you what we do not like
either but that is not science.

I might look it up but chances are pretty high I just program my theory and
share it with everybody else.

Theories are not programs.

I am confirming astrophysics isn't as serious
as I thought after unbiased contributions, submissions and closer
inspections.

You have not done any thought yet.

[...]

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

[...]

I see. You haven't got a set of equations showing time dilation alone is
sufficient to explain relativitistic effects. Can't say I am surprised;
apart from the fact that you are a crank, a set of transformations that
included time dilation but not length contraction could not conserve
mass/energy or momentum, and these are directly observed relativistic
effects.

Length contraction is actually needed to balance Einstein and his mass
increase idiocy. Take the mass increase away and you don't have the length
contraction oddity.

Hint: Take ALL equations written by "Albert Einstein" out of your solvings
and things will start making sense.

[...]

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:b8Wwl.24536$DP1.18246@attbi_s22...
G. L. Bradford wrote:



"Whatever we observe is observed locally at no faster than the speed of
light!"
"Whatever we observe is observed locally at no faster than the speed of
light!"
"Whatever we observe is observed locally at no faster than the speed of
light!"
"Whatever we observe is observed locally at no faster than the speed of
light!"

WHATEVER WE OBSERVE..........




Keep writing Bradford.... hopefully in your case that will eventually
sink in.


======================

You know how much of your local world you can transit in a ground car. And
at what velocity.

Can you put that particular "local world" away distant into the non-local
universe and transit the non-local universe swiftly? though locally knowing
the velocity of your own stride across a floor because of at least one local
factor, from always measuring and otherwise observing the speed of light to
be constant (to be c).

With speed in some constant of boost, say a constant acceleration of 1g,
could your local frame expand in space-time contracting the space-time frame
of the surrounding nearer [non-local] universe at large? Could you swiftly
contract space-time, take away space-time or [light-time history (-)], to
your destination while expanding space-time, putting space-time or
[light-time history (-)], between you and your departure point?

None of this above is any violation of the [locally measurable /
observable] constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum to always be c.

But you, Sam, are largely a mediocrity incapable of vision regarding the
larger Universe. When it comes to the non-local Universe, the infinite, you
and so many others like you constantly look to be way beyond your depth,
drowning.

GLB

=====================

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

You asked a question as to what would be observed if two cannons fired
cannonballs connected by a rope and at near the speed of light at almost
the same time.

I answered your question.

I thought that this was a joke actually... and a funny one. So according to
you the rope really breaks apart? Hahaha...

Do you understand now what would be observed? Did you have any doubts its
true, and if so, what do you think will happen differently in the thought
experiment you have described?

What if you have 2 sponge balls tied with a rope and traveling at c -
epsilon?

Answer: There won't be any length contraction.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

[...]

I see. You haven't got a set of equations showing time dilation alone is
sufficient to explain relativitistic effects. Can't say I am surprised;
apart from the fact that you are a crank, a set of transformations that
included time dilation but not length contraction could not conserve
mass/energy or momentum, and these are directly observed relativistic
effects.

Length contraction is actually needed to balance Einstein and his mass
increase idiocy. Take the mass increase away and you don't have the
length
contraction oddity.

Hint: Take ALL equations written by "Albert Einstein" out of your solvings
and things will start making sense.

It may make sense to someone who fervently wishes that the
world were Euclidean and Newtonian in nature, but it wouldn't
make correct predictions of empirical observations. That would
no doubt prove frustrating to the crank who would then demand
that the Universe change immediately to reflect his point of
view because that's the way he wants it to be...