A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1311  
Old April 30th 09, 01:30 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default 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  
Old April 30th 09, 01:44 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default 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  
Old April 30th 09, 01:59 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default 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  
Old April 30th 09, 02:18 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default 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  
Old April 30th 09, 02:20 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default 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  
Old April 30th 09, 02:59 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default 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  
Old April 30th 09, 04:15 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 341
Default 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  
Old April 30th 09, 04:30 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 341
Default 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  
Old April 30th 09, 04:40 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default 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  
Old April 30th 09, 04:42 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.