Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


Remember Sam that phil takes the answer from FR and multiplies
it by a correction factor that is different for every point
in the universe and different for every speed and every
mass and multiplies it by the FR answer to get GR. So any
answer phil shows without showing his full work is a lie.


It has the exact same values for altitudes lower than 2e7 m but higher
ones the curves are divergent, depending on its orientation towards the
Sun or not:
http://fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/gtd-fr-gr.PNG

Well, now you see what you have to fix. The gps factor does not depend
on which side of the earth the satellite is on and it does not go back
up again and you have it wrong at the center of the earth.

This is, of course, ignoring the very sloppy graph presentation.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:


No it doesn't! Are you stoopid?


Sam is doing propaganda. Sam, do we agree 1+1 = 2?

So this is the level that you want him to start teaching
you math at?

doug wrote:

[...]

You are confusing your hatred and jealousy with science again. Your
failings are not scientific arguments. What you are saying is that
relativity is correct, you just do not like who did it or what
is says. You do not get to tell the universe how to be.

Well this proves the "working part" was first plagiarized from the
concept of Joseph Larmor's time dilation, the mathematical part from
Mileva Marić and is still wrong when high precision is required.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


Yes, your results are wrong both for gps and the center of
the earth. You are trying to run and hide from that.


FR gets the same values as GR and it is still wrong? Does that mean GR
is not reliable?

FR does not get the same answers as GR. Did you not see the
graph that you posted?

I haven't made the center of the Earth measurement yet according to my
corrections, so claiming its invalidity is represents a lie and a
attempt not to answer the question I was asking before.

Your plot shows a value for zero distance. Are you lying or is
the plot lying? You claim you have done the calculation. It
that a lie as well?


Where did I claim this?


Silently dismissing the galaxy in the calculations implies it.

No, I explained this a long time ago. You did not understand that
either.

So now you are only wrong by a factor of 2.26. The ratio is coming
down. Let us know when you get to 1.0.


It stops there because it is perfect now.

Perfectly wrong. Phil do you realize that you have not gotten
anything right yet? You started with being stupid about what
relativity said and then it got worse for you.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


Well, now you see what you have to fix. The gps factor does not depend
on which side of the earth the satellite is on and it does not go back
up again and you have it wrong at the center of the earth.

This is, of course, ignoring the very sloppy graph presentation.


Perhaps I should reiterate again a GPS satellite isn't higher than 2e7 m
away from the surface of the Earth. The side of the Earth will not
determine a discrepancy that can be measured because the surface of the
Earth is affected as much as the satellites.

Have you ever noticed that the satellites go around the earth? You also
have apparently never figured out that the ground stations would
certainly notice such an effect. More grasping at straws on phil's part.
Phil still has not gotten anything right.

doug wrote:

The clocks are in the gps satellites. The gps satellites are not
geosynchronous. You were completely wrong in your statement. Now
go back and look at the rest of how you were wrong.
1. No orbit dependence in the gps clocks is seen.
2. No earth station dependence on location is seen.
Therefore, experiments show you to be wrong.

The dark side of the Earth orbital section balance with the bright side
for both the satellites and the Earth's rotation. So the effects that
are seen are revealed after each period, not each instant.

Beside the discrepancy is very small and you previously said GR
bottlenecks at 1 nanosecond or more already. It can therefore be improved.

[...]

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


Have you ever noticed that the satellites go around the earth? You also
have apparently never figured out that the ground stations would
certainly notice such an effect. More grasping at straws on phil's part.
Phil still has not gotten anything right.


It's pretty scary knowing the GPS "experts" do not know their own
satellites are geostationary.

You are not really this stupid are you? You clearly have never read
anything about the gps system. This is amazingly lame, even for you.
Sleeping in classes is one thing but making completely ignorant
comments like this really shows your lack of knowledge.

doug wrote:

No they do not balance for all orbits. The ground stations do
not see the differences you expect. FR is wrong.

Doug is playing with words. Atomic clocks aren't more precise than 1 ns:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_clock

I do not know what you think you mean by bottleneck but it is
meaningless in science. This is not silly cs stuff. You were
to stupid to understand what I said so you just make things
up.

Fall apart, breaks or chokes if you prefer.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

[...]

Your plot shows a value for zero distance. Are you lying or is
the plot lying? You claim you have done the calculation. It
that a lie as well?


Zero meters from the surface of the Earth. I don't think there's any
need for showing perfectly matching curves for low altitudes.

So you cannot do the center of the earth calculation yet. The
math is easy but you do not do math.


Perfectly wrong. Phil do you realize that you have not gotten
anything right yet? You started with being stupid about what
relativity said and then it got worse for you.


The only thing that is right from SR and GR is the kinetic and
gravitational time dilations, which was basically plagiarized from
Joseph Larmor because Einstein claimed he never read other theories:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Larmor

You are confusing your hatred and jealousy with science again. Your
failings are not scientific arguments. What you are saying is that
relativity is correct, you just do not like who did it or what
is says. You do not get to tell the universe how to be.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


You are not really this stupid are you? You clearly have never read
anything about the gps system. This is amazingly lame, even for you.
Sleeping in classes is one thing but making completely ignorant
comments like this really shows your lack of knowledge.


WAAS & EGNOS certainly are. Those are the ones responsible for the
corrections.

The clocks are in the gps satellites. The gps satellites are not
geosynchronous. You were completely wrong in your statement. Now
go back and look at the rest of how you were wrong.
1. No orbit dependence in the gps clocks is seen.
2. No earth station dependence on location is seen.
Therefore, experiments show you to be wrong.

As a matter of fact FR could save a lot of money by using independent
lower altitude satellites.

You have no reading ability at all. This is really pretty sad, even
for a cs guy.