Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

CitingÂ*Google Groups, Eric Gisse said Phil Bouchard made
“ 3,000 posts in the 3 months �.

Right now, in Sci.Physics, last 12 days, considering no more than
the 30 most-recent posts per “ nym � ( i.e. person ), Phil Bouchard
has the highest “ xRank � ( i.e. he's the “ most watched � ).

xRank is like Google's pageRank, where each nym is a “ usenetPage �.
The higher a nym's xRank, the more likely you'll be replying to him.
Advertizers would ( and do ) pay good money to bump up their pageRanks.

Dorn•Strich nymShifted 9 times in just 12 days,
so I combined his nyms into one, like this:
{ Dorn•Strich








}

The following list is from highest to lowest “ xRank �,
i.e. from “ most watched � to least watched.

1. 15 â–¼ 0 â–²30

The 15 means Phil averaged about 15 posts per day.

The “ ▼ 0 � means he made no “ Replies � to me.
A “ Reply � to me is a post with “ Jeff_Relf � somewhere
in the last 5 Message-IDs of one's “ References: � line.

The “ ▲30 � means he made at least 30 posts, the limit.

2. 22 â–¼ 0 â–²30

3. 5 â–¼ 8 â–²30
4. 2 â–¼ 2 â–²22
5. 6 â–¼ 0 â–²30

6. 2 ▼ 0 ▲22 Jeff•Relf

7. 4 â–¼ 0 â–²30
8. 2 â–¼ 0 â–²23

9. 7 ▼ 0 ▲30 Eric•Gisse

10. 2 â–¼ 0 â–²22
11. 2 â–¼ 0 â–²29
12. 7 â–¼ 0 â–²30
13. 7 â–¼ 0 â–²30
14. 6 â–¼ 0 â–²26
15. 1 â–¼ 0 â–²16
16. 2 â–¼ 0 â–²29
17. 1 â–¼ 0 â–²14
18. 5 â–¼ 0 â–²30
19. 2 â–¼ 0 â–²20

20. 19 ▼ 0 ▲30 Dorn•Strich

21. 3 â–¼ 0 â–²30
22. 2 â–¼ 0 â–²23
23. 3 â–¼ 0 â–²11
24. 3 â–¼ 0 â–²30
25. 1 â–¼ 0 â–²16
26. 5 â–¼ 0 â–²30
27. 1 â–¼ 0 â–²12
28. 1 ▼ 0 ▲16 Gigajustremovetheseandaddmatthe•endholme@yahoo. co

29. 6 â–¼ 0 â–²30

30. 1 â–¼ 4 â–² 4
Roy L. made only 4 posts,
but he got tons of replies from tj and me.

31. 9 â–¼ 0 â–²30

32. 1 â–¼ 0 â–²14
33. 2 â–¼ 0 â–²19

34. 14 ▼23 ▲30 T•J

35. 19 â–¼ 0 â–²30

36. 5 â–¼ 0 â–²30
37. 1 â–¼ 0 â–²10
38. 2 â–¼ 0 â–²16
39. 2 â–¼ 0 â–²20
40. 3 â–¼ 0 â–²29
41. 1 â–¼ 0 â–² 8

42. 3 â–¼ 1 â–²30

43. 2 â–¼ 0 â–²19
44. 1 â–¼ 0 â–²13
45. 2 ▼ 0 ▲ 5 Vince•MorganvinharATHEREoptusnet.com.au
46. 2 â–¼ 0 â–²22 (PV
47. 2 ▼ 0 ▲18 Dirk•Van•de•moorteldirkvandemoortel@nospAm. hotmail.com
48. 3 â–¼ 0 â–²16
49. 3 â–¼ 0 â–²13
50. 1 â–¼ 0 â–²12

doug wrote:

[...]

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.

No actually I wrote that because I was told SR needed to be disproved.
But the square root idiocy is enough showing both SR & GR are blunders.

doug wrote:

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.

Having the fudge factor of the Milky Way allows us processing
interstellar measurements for a long time. The fudge factor of Virgo
handles in turn the Milky Way for a long time.

If you are interested in precise gravitational lensing then I suggest
you take universe atlas on one computer and do all the zooming you wanna do.

What else do I need to tell you? Oh here's one more thing:

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?" -- Albert Einstein

[...]

Sam Wormley wrote:

??

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." --
Albert Einstein

lid wrote:
What, 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.

Doug and Sam cannot answer the absolute of the inverse square law
integral. They simply switched to straight lies now.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:

[...]

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.

No actually I wrote that because I was told SR needed to be disproved.

Uh-oh, tinfoil hat time.

But the square root idiocy is enough showing both SR & GR are blunders.

Hey Phil, what's the distance between points (0,0) and (1,1)
on a Cartesian plane? What's the formula?

Simple Newtonian physics question for Phil: a body initially
at rest is accelerated at a fixed rate of 10 m/s^2 for a
distance of 150 meters. How long (in seconds) did it take the
body to cover the distance? Show your work.

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 05:39:54 +0000 (UTC),
lid wrote:

Citing*Google Groups, Eric Gisse said Phil Bouchard made
“ 3,000 posts in the 3 months ”.

Right now, in Sci.Physics, last 12 days, considering no more than
the 30 most-recent posts per “ nym ” ( i.e. person ), Phil Bouchard
has the highest “ xRank ” ( i.e. he's the “ most watched ” ).

xRank is like Google's pageRank, where each nym is a “ usenetPage ”.
The higher a nym's xRank, the more likely you'll be replying to him.
Advertizers would ( and do ) pay good money to bump up their pageRanks.

Dorn•Strich nymShifted 9 times in just 12 days,
so I combined his nyms into one, like this:
{ Dorn•Strich








}

The following list is from highest to lowest “ xRank ”,
i.e. from “ most watched ” to least watched.

1. 15 ? 0 ?30

The 15 means Phil averaged about 15 posts per day.

The “ ? 0 ” means he made no “ Replies ” to me.
A “ Reply ” to me is a post with “ Jeff_Relf ” somewhere
in the last 5 Message-IDs of one's “ References: ” line.

The “ ?30 ” means he made at least 30 posts, the limit.

2. 22 ? 0 ?30

3. 5 ? 8 ?30
4. 2 ? 2 ?22


[Hammond]
Geez.... I'm the "4th most watched"? There must be a
hellava lot of silent lurkers reading me.... why don't any
of them say anything for chrissakes? Maybe I should publish
my book and let them pay to read me if they don't want to
talk?
===================================
HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
mirror site:
http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
Casey Bennetto mp3 God=G_uv folk song:
http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
==================================

On Apr 30, 9:01*am, George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 05:39:54 +0000 (UTC),





lid wrote:
Citing*Google Groups, Eric Gisse said Phil Bouchard made
“ 3,000 posts in the 3 months ”.

Right now, in Sci.Physics, last 12 days, considering no more than
the 30 most-recent posts per “ nym ” ( i.e. person ), Phil Bouchard
has the highest “ xRank ” ( i.e. he's the “ most watched ” ).

xRank is like Google's pageRank, where each nym is a “ usenetPage ”.
The higher a nym's xRank, the more likely you'll be replying to him.
Advertizers would ( and do ) pay good money to bump up their pageRanks.

Dorn•Strich nymShifted 9 times in just 12 days,
so I combined his nyms into one, like this:
{ Dorn•Strich
*
*
*
* strichninetyn...@gmail .com
*
*
*
*
* *}

The following list is from highest to lowest “ xRank ”,
i.e. from “ most watched ” to least watched.

*1. 15 ? 0 ?30

* * * *The 15 means Phil averaged about 15 posts per day.

* * * *The “ ? 0 ” means he made no “ Replies ” to me.
* * * *A “ Reply ” to me is a post with “ Jeff_Relf ” somewhere
* * * *in the last 5 Message-IDs of one's “ References: ” line.

* * * *The “ ?30 ” means he made at least 30 posts, the limit.

*2. 22 ? 0 ?30

*3. *5 ? 8 ?30
*4. *2 ? 2 ?22

[Hammond]
* *Geez.... I'm the "4th most watched"? *There must be a
hellava lot of silent lurkers reading me.... why don't any
of them say anything for chrissakes? *Maybe I should publish
my book and let them pay to read me if they don't want to
talk?
===================================
* * *HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE
*http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god
* *mirror site:
*http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com
* Casey Bennetto mp3 God=G_uv folk song:http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3
==================================- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

George, would you mind posting the complete Top 10 list

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

[...]

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.


No actually I wrote that because I was told SR needed to be disproved.

So you think that lying about relativity constitutes a disproof? You
really were asleep in all your classes.

But the square root idiocy is enough showing both SR & GR are blunders.

You cannot be this stupid and still be able to type.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


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.


Having the fudge factor of the Milky Way allows us processing
interstellar measurements for a long time. The fudge factor of Virgo
handles in turn the Milky Way for a long time.

No, it tries to cover up for your wrong theory. Having a fudge
factor which is different for every point in space means you
are wrong.


If you are interested in precise gravitational lensing then I suggest
you take universe atlas on one computer and do all the zooming you wanna
do.

Well, FR is wrong so the predictions will be wrong.

What else do I need to tell you? Oh here's one more thing:

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?" -- Albert Einstein

Phil knows no science or math so he tries the cowardly way out and
spouts random, generally made up, quotes.


[...]