|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1311
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Eric Gisse wrote: On Apr 29, 12:11 pm, 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. FR uses physics laws, is more precise and does not require slow square roots cycles out of the CPU. WTF is this bull**** about square roots? 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. I am not sure either why would the government trust blunders and pay more expensive high altitude satellites for it. [...] Maybe it isn't wrong, you ****ing moron. |
#1312
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
doug wrote:
Apparent paradoxes caused by your ignorance are not real paradoxes. What looks like a paradox, smells like a paradox and acts like a paradox must be a paradox. It is not the final word on science. and nature is defined by square roots. (rotfl) It's a pretty smart nature we live in then. [...] First of all, you do not get the same answers. You are wrong except at the point where you calculated your fudge factor. Everywhere else you are wrong. No because I get the exact same curve as GR. The fudge factor just defines the amplitude of the curve and is in fact very significant. But, in spite of that, new theories have to reproduce exactly what the old theories did in the realm where they were tested. That is why you have to test your theory, if you want anyone to do other than laugh at you, against all the currently known experiments. Your theory fails all of them. The thing you do not realize is that to get the same answers to all the experiments requires any new theory to look just like relativity in those areas. Throwing out a square root since you do not like it just makes you look stupid. Let me laugh at you first with the singularities, wormholes, length and mass contraction, velocity cap of 3e8 m/s, the Hubble sphere problem, time travel in the past and consequently an infinite amount of universes created on the fly, dark matter, an inflating bread-like space and the light-year measurement unit blunders. Well, you do not get the same time dilation curve. Even your own plot says the predictions are different. Therefore you are wrong. QM is built on relativity and there is no FTL there either. So you are wrong again. Phil's two postulates: 1. phil does not like or understand relativity 2. phil does not like or understand square roots. 3. phil thinks blunders are useless [...] No, what matters is learning something. You did not and have not since school. Look at how stupid you looked on your massive misunderstanding of the cannon expample you failed. Everybody will agree on the cannonball experiment: http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...annonballs.pdf [...] |
#1313
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
doug wrote:
No the fudge factor signifies that you are wrong. I told you it had to be different at every point in space and you told me there was only one value. Now you say it has different values in different places. That means that your theory that has to know the right answer before doing any predictions is a joke. All you need to have is a fudge factor for each scale. This means the Milky Way, Virgo and the Virgo supercluster. This means you can measure the general mass of the hosting cluster by calculating the mass of a galaxy through its luminosity and then solving the fudge factor of the hosting cluster by measuring the angular velocities of the tangential stars from my equations. For example the fudge factors seem to gradually lower for each scale and it doesn't look like it will be null outside the supercluster: Milky Way = 1.3450632*10^27 Virgo = 5*10^23 I wouldn't be surprised the universe is bigger than we think it is. |
#1314
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: 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, Apparent paradoxes caused by your ignorance are not real paradoxes. Wikipedia is written by cranks It is not the final word on science. and nature is defined by square roots. And you are too stupid to understand you have to describe how nature is, not how you want it to be. Even if I come up with the exact same answers as GR down to the order of 1 ns it is still wrong. First of all, you do not get the same answers. You are wrong except at the point where you calculated your fudge factor. Everywhere else you are wrong. But, in spite of that, new theories have to reproduce exactly what the old theories did in the realm where they were tested. That is why you have to test your theory, if you want anyone to do other than laugh at you, against all the currently known experiments. Your theory fails all of them. The thing you do not realize is that to get the same answers to all the experiments requires any new theory to look just like relativity in those areas. Throwing out a square root since you do not like it just makes you look stupid. 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. Well, you do not get the same time dilation curve. Even your own plot says the predictions are different. Therefore you are wrong. QM is built on relativity and there is no FTL there either. So you are wrong again. Phil's two postulates: 1. phil does not like or understand relativity 2. phil does not like or understand square roots. That is not enough to build a solid theory on. 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. You really do like to speak from ignorance. Being to the cafeteria does not count. 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. And you get the wrong answers so you are wrong. It does not matter what you think when the world tells you that you are wrong. 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. No, what matters is learning something. You did not and have not since school. Look at how stupid you looked on your massive misunderstanding of the cannon expample you failed. 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. So phil want to have a tantrum when he is shown to be wrong. That is phil's choice. But it does not constitute a scientific argument on his part. Mathematicians are mostly women and are very nice people to work with. Engineers don't like spending their time on blunders. So they will ignore FR as it has nothing to offer them. |
#1315
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: 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. No the fudge factor signifies that you are wrong. I told you it had to be different at every point in space and you told me there was only one value. Now you say it has different values in different places. That means that your theory that has to know the right answer before doing any predictions is a joke. |
#1316
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
On Apr 29, 4:59*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote: No the fudge factor signifies that you are wrong. I told you it had to be different at every point in space and you told me there was only one value. Now you say it has different values in different places. That means that your theory that has to know the right answer before doing any predictions is a joke. All you need to have is a fudge factor for each scale. *This means the Milky Way, Virgo and the Virgo supercluster. *This means you can measure the general mass of the hosting cluster by calculating the mass of a galaxy through its luminosity and then solving the fudge factor of the hosting cluster by measuring the angular velocities of the tangential stars from my equations. Except you have no idea what the relation between mass and luminosity is because you are too stupid to comprehend the literature. 3,000 posts in the 3 months and you have _no understanding_ of physics. At all. It is hilarious! For example the fudge factors seem to gradually lower for each scale and it doesn't look like it will be null outside the supercluster: Milky Way = 1.3450632*10^27 Virgo = 5*10^23 Imagine that, a computer programmer is doing numerology. I wouldn't be surprised the universe is bigger than we think it is. I wouldn't be surprised if you had no ****ing clue. |
#1317
|
|||
|
|||
uint isqrt_ia32( uint );
IÂ*don't know why anyone would want the square root of an integer,
returned as an integer, but “ isqrt_ia32_joda.c †remains interesting: http://jodarom.sdf1.org/code/arith/isqrt_ia32_joda.c Each call to isqrt_ia32() loads 4 resisters and then executes exactly 144 instructions ( x86 assembly ), not branching once. “ rgs †starts off being 2^30 and ends up holding the returned value. Besides the 4*2^28 and 7*2^28 constants, each of the 16 blocks is just “ moving, SBBing adding, subtracting, xORing and shifting â€, each with its own constant: 2^0, 2^1, 2^2, to 2^15. The “ SBB †instruction: “ Adds the source operand ( second operand ) and the carry ( CF ) flag, and subtracts the result from the destination operand (first operand). The result of the subtraction is stored in the destination operand. â€. It's fast, I guess, but it sure ain't pretty. |
#1318
|
|||
|
|||
I await Sam Wormley's better solution.
What,Â*pray tell, makes Sam Wormley think Phil Bouchard is
“ deficient in modern numerical algorithms †? Is there something wrong with this ? : http://jodarom.sdf1.org/code/arith/isqrt_ia32_joda.c I await Sam Wormley's better solution. |
#1319
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: doug wrote: Apparent paradoxes caused by your ignorance are not real paradoxes. What looks like a paradox, smells like a paradox and acts like a paradox must be a paradox. What looks like phil's stupidity, smells like phil's studidity and acts like phil's stupidity must be phil's stupidity. It is not the final word on science. and nature is defined by square roots. (rotfl) It's a pretty smart nature we live in then. Yes, you go ahead and try to tell the universe how it should behave. [...] First of all, you do not get the same answers. You are wrong except at the point where you calculated your fudge factor. Everywhere else you are wrong. No because I get the exact same curve as GR. The fudge factor just defines the amplitude of the curve and is in fact very significant. No, the curves are different. Your curves are different. You get different answers. Getting different answers means they are not the same answers. Is that too difficult for you? But, in spite of that, new theories have to reproduce exactly what the old theories did in the realm where they were tested. That is why you have to test your theory, if you want anyone to do other than laugh at you, against all the currently known experiments. Your theory fails all of them. The thing you do not realize is that to get the same answers to all the experiments requires any new theory to look just like relativity in those areas. Throwing out a square root since you do not like it just makes you look stupid. Let me laugh at you first with the singularities, wormholes, length and mass contraction, velocity cap of 3e8 m/s, the Hubble sphere problem, time travel in the past and consequently an infinite amount of universes created on the fly, dark matter, an inflating bread-like space and the light-year measurement unit blunders. Phil has no answer so he has a tantrum and repeats his hatred and jealousy. Well, you do not get the same time dilation curve. Even your own plot says the predictions are different. Therefore you are wrong. QM is built on relativity and there is no FTL there either. So you are wrong again. Phil's two postulates: 1. phil does not like or understand relativity 2. phil does not like or understand square roots. 3. phil thinks blunders are useless So stop making blunders and learn GR. [...] No, what matters is learning something. You did not and have not since school. Look at how stupid you looked on your massive misunderstanding of the cannon expample you failed. Everybody will agree on the cannonball experiment: http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...annonballs.pdf Everyone agrees that phil has no clue about relativity. It is funny to see you make a fool of yourself and think you can use that as a basis for a new theory. [...] |
#1320
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: doug wrote: No the fudge factor signifies that you are wrong. I told you it had to be different at every point in space and you told me there was only one value. Now you say it has different values in different places. That means that your theory that has to know the right answer before doing any predictions is a joke. All you need to have is a fudge factor for each scale. Yes, so you need a different fudge factor for every point in the universe like I told you. That means you do not have a theory. This means the Milky Way, Virgo and the Virgo supercluster. This means you can measure the general mass of the hosting cluster by calculating the mass of a galaxy through its luminosity and then solving the fudge factor of the hosting cluster by measuring the angular velocities of the tangential stars from my equations. Laughing at this does not begin to convey how funny it is. For example the fudge factors seem to gradually lower for each scale and it doesn't look like it will be null outside the supercluster: Milky Way = 1.3450632*10^27 Virgo = 5*10^23 This means FR is useless. I wouldn't be surprised the universe is bigger than we think it is. Since you know nothing, most anything would surprise you. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Finite Relativism: Review Request | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 519 | September 25th 12 12:26 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 |
GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 12 | January 1st 09 04:20 PM |
BLAMING SPECIAL RELATIVITY? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 13th 08 01:05 PM |