Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

doug wrote:

[...]

You have never been able to say what you think those laws are.

I am able to and I have the specific words for it.

[...]

You really are a fool and have no idea what gps is about at all.
But that is consistent with your demonstrated ignorance of science
and math.

Since the GPS is all about precision we can now silently dismiss GR.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

[...]

That is an amazingly stupid statement. Since to have any hope of
being right FR would have to exactly reproduce GR, then there are
no changes necessary and nothing changes. I know you hope to get
rich and famous off of this but the best you can hope for is
to be listed on crank.net.


I am not sure what you are attempting but this is certainly not science.

No, FR is not science.

FR uses physics laws,

You have never been able to say what you think those laws are.

is more precise

You have demonstrated you have no idea what this means.

and does not require slow square
roots cycles out of the CPU.

The universe does not care what is needed in any cpu.

I am not sure either why would the
government trust blunders and pay more expensive high altitude
satellites for it.

You really are a fool and have no idea what gps is about at all.
But that is consistent with your demonstrated ignorance of science
and math.



[...]

Sam Wormley wrote:

Calculating square roots is trivial for CPUs.

No it's not. For a truncated integer it will look like this:
http://jodarom.sdf1.org/code/arith/isqrt_ia32_joda.c

[...]

Sam Wormley wrote:

Not only are you deficient in GPS, Physics, Mathematics, but
you are also somewhat deficient in modern numerical algorithms!

If you found an error to the aforementioned code then submit a bug to
John L. Dahlstrom. If the instruction is internal it will still follow
a similar process.

On Apr 29, 1:30*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

* Calculating square roots is trivial for CPUs.

No it's not. *For a truncated integer it will look like this:http://jodarom.sdf1.org/code/arith/isqrt_ia32_joda.c

[...]

20 lines of C _IS_ trivial compared to a decent Runga-Kutta
implementation.

Face if Phil, you don't belong with physics. Find a new hobby.

doug wrote:

There is no evidence of it in anything you have done. You
are lying.

I have the right graphs at all scales. The evidence will be shown to
the local university since you do not demonstrate a responsible behavior
and then to computer scientists, mathematicians and engineers.

[...]

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

[...]

You have never been able to say what you think those laws are.


I am able to and I have the specific words for it.

There is no evidence of it in anything you have done. You
are lying.

[...]

You really are a fool and have no idea what gps is about at all.
But that is consistent with your demonstrated ignorance of science
and math.


Since the GPS is all about precision we can now silently dismiss GR.

Since FR is all about ignorance we can dismiss it but not without
a good laugh at it first.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


There is no evidence of it in anything you have done. You
are lying.


I have the right graphs at all scales.

Except that they give wrong answers. You work is a joke. A bad
joke which was funny for a while but is getting dull now.

The evidence will be shown to
the local university since you do not demonstrate a responsible behavior
and then to computer scientists, mathematicians and engineers.

So you consider pointing out your mistakes is considered by you
to not show a responsible behaviour. That shows how weak any
of your thoughts are that they cannot stand even the slightest
of scrutiny.

Your local university gets lots of cranks showing up with their
great theories and proofs of one kind or another. These kind of
things get passed around to laugh at. Some profs will politely
encourage you to study, many will just throw the nonsense in
a trashcan and go on to the next one they got that day. If I
thought you had something, I would help you to get it actually
looked at in the university system. But you have nothing.

Showing your work to computer scientists will either provoke
laughter if they did not sleep in their math and physics
classes or a "so what" if, like you, they did sleep there.

Mathematicians tend to not know science but they would also
laugh at your feeble attempts at math. Engineers will just
wonder why you are bothering. They generally know nothing
about relativity either. Notice the groups of them that
show up here with their own crackpot ideas. You will find
that you are near the bottom of the barrel for cranks, ahead
only of people like koobee, strich, hanson and potter.



[...]

doug wrote:

Except that they give wrong answers. You work is a joke. A bad
joke which was funny for a while but is getting dull now.



So you consider pointing out your mistakes is considered by you
to not show a responsible behaviour. That shows how weak any
of your thoughts are that they cannot stand even the slightest
of scrutiny.

Well according to you a paradox isn't a paradox, Wikipedia is written by
cranks and nature is defined by square roots. Even if I come up with
the exact same answers as GR down to the order of 1 ns it is still wrong.

If I get the rotation curve of the galaxies right, link with QM by
accepting FTL and I get the exact same gravitational time dilation curve
around the Earth with one theory of two simple postulates then I think
you're the one in error.

Your local university gets lots of cranks showing up with their
great theories and proofs of one kind or another. These kind of
things get passed around to laugh at. Some profs will politely
encourage you to study, many will just throw the nonsense in
a trashcan and go on to the next one they got that day. If I
thought you had something, I would help you to get it actually
looked at in the university system. But you have nothing.

The local branch is more powerful than yours and I've already been there
many times. It seems dark matter is a very active subject so they are
either with it or against it.

Theories are also laughable when it is wrong but in my case I am using
physics laws into a general mathematical representation.

Showing your work to computer scientists will either provoke
laughter if they did not sleep in their math and physics
classes or a "so what" if, like you, they did sleep there.

You cannot discriminate those who sleep in their classes. All that
matters are the answers in the exams.

Mathematicians tend to not know science but they would also
laugh at your feeble attempts at math. Engineers will just
wonder why you are bothering. They generally know nothing
about relativity either. Notice the groups of them that
show up here with their own crackpot ideas. You will find
that you are near the bottom of the barrel for cranks, ahead
only of people like koobee, strich, hanson and potter.

Doug is acting like a knows-it-all goody-two-shoes. Mathematicians are
mostly women and are very nice people to work with. Engineers don't
like spending their time on blunders.

doug wrote:

That is too complicated math for Phil. He is still working
on multiplication. You notice how much time he spends on
his fudge factor so he can use it to multiply his random
number generator by to get the correct answer. Except he
does not even get it then.

Well the fudge factor is very significant because if it isn't null at
superclusters scale then it means the universe is even bigger than we
think it is.