|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#361
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote: Where is your justification for that? Cite experimental evidence. "FR predicts a light beam from Earth to a similar planet from Andromeda will take: 2.6e4 years So you say. You haven't shown that. Where's the math? Where's the theory? Where's the confirming experiments? GR anticipates: 2.5e6 years This makes the light beam 9,705.9% faster at that scale. For Alpha Centauri we were talking about a 100.00080373% difference." A statistic based upona fantasy is of no import. The cannonball example just shows you are completely ignorant of what relativity says. Since you are so wrong on such a basic property of relativity you cannot proceed to try to go further. There is no challenge to overcome since SR is deadlocked. So you claim yet strangely you have been unable to say why, other than that you don't like SR. Hatred and jeaslousy are not scientific arguments. They are very different. Relativity is accurate, FR is only a dream and a delusion. Relativity are false hopes and needs to get obliterated. Now everybody knows it's wrong and why so let's move on to FTL research. Once again, hatred and jealousy and "I just don't like it" are not scientific arguments. |
#362
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: Greg Neill wrote: [...] The Moon averages about 384400km from the Earth, or about 60 Earth radii. According to your theory then, time should be moving faster at the distance of the Moon by a factor of 60^2, or 3600. How did the Apollo atronauts carry enough food to make the trip? A two week journey translates into about 138 years. When multiple bodies are involved, measurements will be very different. The "curved" spacetime GR suggests is identical from FR's gravitational fields juxtaposition. So FR is exactly like GR when it needs to be except that it is completely different. A geostationary orbit at an altitude of 35786km has an orbital radius of about 6.6 Earth radii. So according to your theory, they should experience a time dilation of about 44 times faster than things down here on Earth. Like I said before, FR needs considering the Sun's effects also and the factor will be much less than 44 times. In other words, you have no clue. [...] (i^2*j^2*(n^2*x^3-j*n^2*x^2-i*n^2*x^2+i*j*n^2*x-2*k^2*m^2*x+j*k^2*m^2+i*k^2* m^2)) / ((i^2*j^2*n^2+j^2*k^2*m^2+i^2*k^2*m^2)v(x-i)*(x-j)) What are i,j,k,m,n, and just to be certain, x and v? What's the frame of reference? What are the units? Doug will not be able to provide the definitions of the variables because you haven't posted them. Or, are you claiming that Doug is a mind reader? Science is plagiarized by definition so why should I post them here? x is the finish line in meters and v is the speed of the object (c in case of light) in meters per second. So you have no clue what you mean. [...] There is no mention of the thought experiement regarding a frame of reference tied to a photon as you suggeted there was. You lied. You are a liar. Einstein's rules are Einstein's own words. Let's not silently dismiss what's written on the web page. Except that you are lying and do not want to be called on it. Which book? Which edition? That expression represents a scaling factor, not a length. "Relativity, The Special and General Theory" - fifteenth edition. It represents indeed a scaling factor. A scaling factor is not a length. So are we to conclude that in your theory the Earth is stationary at the center of the Universe? Exactly. Wrong again, phil. That is a very arrogant statement on your part. Are the balls connected by the metal rod before they are fired? If so, both balls must be fired at once, right?, as they are rigidly conected. And the cannoneer has no choice in the matter of setting a separate firing time for each. The stationary observer will see the ensemble contract in the direction of motion. Ok. Consider the cannons being exactly 1 meter away from each other and both cannonballs are fired at the exact same time. This cannot be clearer. And it makes no difference. You have never understood what relativity says. No, I am not. It is a contradiction for you to claim that aether entrainment both occurs and doesn't occur. If the Sun's field cancels the effect, then it cannot be responsible for MM's result. You're just trying to obfuscate things again. Your statement is vague also. Yes, we know you do not understand it. We also note you are hiding from the fact that your FR misses the gps corrections by a factor of a billion. FR is DOA. [...] Word salad. GR makes testable predictions. Those predictions have been tested. So far GR's predictions have proven to be correct, and to very high precision. GR is a mapping of local observations and adjusted accordingly. FR is a bottom - up theory. [...] |
#363
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Einstein's proposal to do away with the aether is chiefly remarkable
for the lack of understanding of the physical universe which it displays. Sir Issac Newton himself denounced those who believed action could accur across empty space as not having a competent faculty of thinking in philosophical matters. In his letter to Bently 1692-3 Feb 25 he says: That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws. Dr Silberstein, who had made a careful study of Einstein's theory and thus pointed out the bizarre conclusions drawn by some pure mathematicians who are prone to forget that the deflections of starlight near the sun is a purely physical problem as the refraction of light in the earth's atmosphere. The sun's deflection of light is similar to refraction, but very minute - half of it being 0.875", as against 2000 in earth's atmosphere, which is about 2300 times smaller. According to the report of observers of the eclipse of 1919, this miunte deflection disappears, when the sun moves out of the path of the light from the stars lying behind it, such a temporary effect cannot properly be attributed to a warp of space; and one cannot reflect how fortunate it is that the physical theory of astronomical refraction was perfected by Newton, Laplace and Bessel before such confusing terms as fourth dimension space time manifolds were introduced into science. It cannot be held that Einstein's theory enlightens us on the motion of mercury's perihelion, because at least half a dozen explanations, some of them approved by Newton, Hall, Newcomb,and Seeliger, are already known. Nor can it be believed that the Global positioning system works purely based on the space time warp when it can much easily and less mystically be explained by the dragging of the universal medium around the earth as proven by the esteemed french scientist Sagnac and constantly monitored by the huge Ring Lazer located in underground caverns in my home town. Those who believe that this is a space time warp need to have a look into practical thinking and stay away from star trek. But these of course will never even be looked at by mainstream science because it would go against the faith in your religon you call science. Every single scientific report that contradicts Einstein is buried in haste or manipulated around his theory. Just look at the faster than light experiment. FIrst of all it was claimed that it simply couldn't happen and when they realised that it was actually happening and couldn't be denied it was put down to it arriving before it was sent or non physical realities. This is stupid and I expect more from the esteemed men in science as some are of brilliant mind but have been brainwashed by space time warps. Wake up people!!! |
#364
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 30, 8:43 am, Phil Bouchard wrote: [snip all] What the hell are you doing, Phil? Why are you posting here? Here's a video you might be interested in, Eric: http://www.speed-light.info/video_bl...e_wormhole.htm |
#365
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
The speed of light is not constant. As with the speed of sound in air
it is related to the Elasticity and the density of the medium it is propogated in. v = (square root of C/p) where C is a coefficient of stiffness and p is the density. This changes dependant upon the point in space it is measured. Due to an inherant property of mass the aether is less dense near the sun and increases in density the furthur out from the sun it goes, this is what pulls the earth towards it. Because of the inherant properties of mass an object orbiting a bigger object will find that force is givern to it at right angles to an imaginary line drawn between the centre of the larger object and the object. This also explains the anomaly of increase in speed in slingshot manoeuvres that current theories cannot explain. This inherant property of mass is what causes gravity in all objects and perfectly explains the micro casmir force. It is so simple someone with half a brain could understand it, no need for pages and pages of maths equations. Unfortunately it took me about 2 two years of research to discover it. According to the best calculation of the density of the aether I have found it has has an elastic power 689,321,600,000 times greater than that of air in relation to it's density. Thus it has practically an unlimited power of contraction. So it will be able to generate the huge forces required for holding the planets and stars in their orbit. Gravity, Magnetism and electric fields are caused by this medium under strain wanting to return to it's natural state, just like waves in a pool. The waves are propogated because of the natural want of the water to return to equalibrium. |
#366
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
On Mar 30, 3:23*pm, bobd wrote:
Einstein's proposal to do away with the aether is chiefly remarkable for the lack of understanding of the physical universe which it displays. Sir Issac Newton himself denounced those who believed action could accur across empty space as not having a competent faculty of thinking in philosophical matters. In his letter to Bently 1692-3 Feb 25 he says: That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws. Dr Silberstein, who had made a careful study of Einstein's theory and thus pointed out the bizarre conclusions drawn by some pure mathematicians who are prone to forget that the deflections of starlight near the sun is a purely physical problem as the refraction of light in the earth's atmosphere. The sun's deflection of light is similar to refraction, but very minute - half of it being 0.875", as against 2000 in earth's atmosphere, which is about 2300 times smaller. According to the report of observers of the eclipse of 1919, this miunte deflection disappears, when the sun moves out of the path of the light from the stars lying behind it, such a temporary effect cannot properly be attributed to a warp of space; and one cannot reflect how fortunate it is that the physical theory of astronomical refraction was perfected by Newton, Laplace and Bessel before such confusing terms as fourth dimension space time manifolds were introduced into science. It cannot be held that Einstein's theory enlightens us on the motion of mercury's perihelion, because at least half a dozen explanations, some of them approved by Newton, Hall, Newcomb,and Seeliger, are already known. Nor can it be believed that the Global positioning system works purely based on the space time warp when it can much easily and less mystically be explained by the dragging of the universal medium around the earth as proven by the esteemed french scientist Sagnac and constantly monitored by the huge Ring Lazer located in underground caverns in my home town. Those who believe that this is a space time warp need to have a look into practical thinking and stay away from star trek. But these of course will never even be looked at by mainstream science because it would go against the faith in your religon you call science. Every single scientific report that contradicts Einstein is buried in haste or manipulated around his theory. Just look at the faster than light experiment. FIrst of all it was claimed that it simply couldn't happen and when they realised that it was actually happening and couldn't be denied it was put down to it arriving before it was sent or non physical realities. This is stupid and I expect more from the esteemed men in science as some are of brilliant mind but have been brainwashed by space time warps. Wake up people!!! LeSage theory was actually fairly well developed, to the point where it made a number of testable experimental predictions. Those experimental observations were made and the model ruled out. This is *precisely* the way science should work, and did work. PD |
#367
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
bobd wrote: Einstein's proposal to do away with the aether is chiefly remarkable for the lack of understanding of the physical universe which it displays. Sir Issac Newton himself denounced those who believed action could accur across empty space as not having a competent faculty of thinking in philosophical matters. In his letter to Bently 1692-3 Feb 25 he says: That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. The universe does not care what is pleasing to you. You are doing philosophy, not science. Philosophy has nothing to do with science. It is what you do when you cannot do science. Gravity must be caused by by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws. Dr Silberstein, who had made a careful study of Einstein's theory and thus pointed out the bizarre conclusions drawn by some pure mathematicians who are prone to forget that the deflections of starlight near the sun is a purely physical problem as the refraction of light in the earth's atmosphere. The sun's deflection of light is similar to refraction, but very minute - half of it being 0.875", as against 2000 in earth's atmosphere, which is about 2300 times smaller. According to the report of observers of the eclipse of 1919, this miunte deflection disappears, when the sun moves out of the path of the light from the stars lying behind it, such a temporary effect cannot properly be attributed to a warp of space; and one cannot reflect how fortunate it is that the physical theory of astronomical refraction was perfected by Newton, Laplace and Bessel before such confusing terms as fourth dimension space time manifolds were introduced into science. It cannot be held that Einstein's theory enlightens us on the motion of mercury's perihelion, because at least half a dozen explanations, some of them approved by Newton, Hall, Newcomb,and Seeliger, are already known. Well, relativity is the one that gets it right. There is also a century of other experimental verification of relativity. Nor can it be believed that the Global positioning system works purely based on the space time warp when it can much easily and less mystically be explained by the dragging of the universal medium around the earth as proven by the esteemed french scientist Sagnac and constantly monitored by the huge Ring Lazer located in underground caverns in my home town. Those who believe that this is a space time warp need to have a look into practical thinking and stay away from star trek. Your ignorance is not a scientific argument. Sagnac has nothing to do with the gps. You are the one dreaming and hoping your delusions will become real. But these of course will never even be looked at by mainstream science because it would go against the faith in your religon you call science. Every single scientific report that contradicts Einstein is buried in haste or manipulated around his theory. Since there is a century of experimental support for relativity, your paranoia looks pretty stupid. Just look at the faster than light experiment. FIrst of all it was claimed that it simply couldn't happen and when they realised that it was actually happening and couldn't be denied it was put down to it arriving before it was sent or non physical realities. There have been no demonstrations of this. There are various usenet cranks claiming it. If you have a reference to science, show it. Otherwise you are lying. This is stupid and I expect more from the esteemed men in science as some are of brilliant mind but have been brainwashed by space time warps. Wake up people!!! Well, you have shown no problems with relativity. You have shown you do not like it and do not understand it but that has no effect on the validity of it. |
#368
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
On Mar 31, 10:40*am, doug wrote:
bobd wrote: Einstein's proposal to do away with the aether is chiefly remarkable for the lack of understanding of the physical universe which it displays. Sir Issac Newton himself denounced those who believed action could accur across empty space as not having a competent faculty of thinking in philosophical matters. In his letter to Bently 1692-3 Feb 25 he says: That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. The universe does not care what is pleasing to you. You are doing philosophy, not science. Philosophy has nothing to do with science. It is what you do when you cannot do science. Philosophy has everything to do with science hence the term natural philosophy. Which was the old name for physics. That it the chief aim of men in science, to find out how the universe works, not just the equations for it. Ask any esteemed, dedicated scientist and they will tell you they long to find out how the universe works. Look at Einstein not only did he state the maths but also the supposed reason (Bending of space time) If he was into "science" as you say it is then he would have not givern the bending of space time theory and Newton's equations would be all that was needed. Gravity must be caused by by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws. Dr Silberstein, who had made a careful study of Einstein's theory and thus pointed out the bizarre conclusions drawn by some pure mathematicians who are prone to forget that the deflections of starlight near the sun is a purely physical problem as the refraction of light in the earth's atmosphere. The sun's deflection of light is similar to refraction, but very minute - half of it being 0.875", as against 2000 in earth's atmosphere, which is about 2300 times smaller. According to the report of observers of the eclipse of 1919, this miunte deflection disappears, when the sun moves out of the path of the light from the stars lying behind it, such a temporary effect cannot properly be attributed to a warp of space; and one cannot reflect how fortunate it is that the physical theory of astronomical refraction was perfected by Newton, Laplace and Bessel before such confusing terms as fourth dimension space time manifolds were introduced into science. It cannot be held that Einstein's theory enlightens us on the motion of mercury's perihelion, because at least half a dozen explanations, some of them approved by Newton, Hall, Newcomb,and Seeliger, are already known. Well, relativity is the one that gets it right. There is also a century of other experimental verification of relativity. Read these hypothesis put forward some of them get it right to. Nor can it be believed that the Global positioning system works purely based on the space time warp when it can much easily and less mystically be explained by the dragging of the universal medium around the earth as proven by the esteemed french scientist Sagnac and constantly monitored by the huge Ring Lazer located in underground caverns in my home town. Those who believe that this is a space time warp need to have a look into practical thinking and stay away from star trek. Your ignorance is not a scientific argument. Sagnac has nothing to do with the gps. You are the one dreaming and hoping your delusions will become real. No shiit sherlock. But the sagnac effect is related to GPS, if you imagine the aether to be dragged around the earth as the ring lazers prove. The only reason the aether was disputed in the first place was because they could not find the "wind" of it that was meant to travel through the earth. When sagnac discovered that it was in fact being dragged around the earth it was too late as Einstein's theory had crept in and taken over like the plague. But these of course will never even be looked at by mainstream science because it would go against the faith in your religon you call science. Every single scientific report that contradicts Einstein is buried in haste or manipulated around his theory. Since there is a century of experimental support for relativity, your paranoia looks pretty stupid. * Just look at the faster than light experiment. FIrst of all it was claimed that it simply couldn't happen and when they realised that it was actually happening and couldn't be denied it was put down to it arriving before it was sent or non physical realities. There have been no demonstrations of this. There are various usenet cranks claiming it. If you have a reference to science, show it. Otherwise you are lying. http://www.livescience.com/technolog...low_light.html http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/000530b.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/781199.stm the part that states "In the other experiment, a pulse of light that enters a transparent chamber filled with caesium gas reaches speeds 300 times the normal speed of light. According to the researchers, the main part of the light pulse leaves the far side of the chamber even before it enters at the near side! " Of course it's hotly disputed because it would put an end to the religeon of relativity. * This is stupid and I expect more from the esteemed men in science as some are of brilliant mind but have been brainwashed by space time warps. Wake up people!!! Well, you have shown no problems with relativity. You have shown you do not like it and do not understand it but that has no effect on the validity of it. You are partly right that I have shown no errors, only paradoxs (Decreasing speed of pioneer space craft, increased unexplained speed when slingshotting.) I am saying that there is a much simpler way of understanding the universe than what is givern at the moment. I am also stating that if people had accepted the aether long ago then man would have almost worked worked out the universe long ago. There is no proof that the aether does not exhist. The M-M experiement simply showed that it was dragged around by the earth, as Sagnac found out. I'll say it once again, by this time it was too late and because einsteins math's lined up with the results it was taken as a proof of bending space time, even though this is absurd. |
#369
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
On Mar 31, 10:27*am, PD wrote:
On Mar 30, 3:23*pm, bobd wrote: Einstein's proposal to do away with the aether is chiefly remarkable for the lack of understanding of the physical universe which it displays. Sir Issac Newton himself denounced those who believed action could accur across empty space as not having a competent faculty of thinking in philosophical matters. In his letter to Bently 1692-3 Feb 25 he says: That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it. Gravity must be caused by by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws. Dr Silberstein, who had made a careful study of Einstein's theory and thus pointed out the bizarre conclusions drawn by some pure mathematicians who are prone to forget that the deflections of starlight near the sun is a purely physical problem as the refraction of light in the earth's atmosphere. The sun's deflection of light is similar to refraction, but very minute - half of it being 0.875", as against 2000 in earth's atmosphere, which is about 2300 times smaller. According to the report of observers of the eclipse of 1919, this miunte deflection disappears, when the sun moves out of the path of the light from the stars lying behind it, such a temporary effect cannot properly be attributed to a warp of space; and one cannot reflect how fortunate it is that the physical theory of astronomical refraction was perfected by Newton, Laplace and Bessel before such confusing terms as fourth dimension space time manifolds were introduced into science. It cannot be held that Einstein's theory enlightens us on the motion of mercury's perihelion, because at least half a dozen explanations, some of them approved by Newton, Hall, Newcomb,and Seeliger, are already known. Nor can it be believed that the Global positioning system works purely based on the space time warp when it can much easily and less mystically be explained by the dragging of the universal medium around the earth as proven by the esteemed french scientist Sagnac and constantly monitored by the huge Ring Lazer located in underground caverns in my home town. Those who believe that this is a space time warp need to have a look into practical thinking and stay away from star trek. But these of course will never even be looked at by mainstream science because it would go against the faith in your religon you call science. Every single scientific report that contradicts Einstein is buried in haste or manipulated around his theory. Just look at the faster than light experiment. FIrst of all it was claimed that it simply couldn't happen and when they realised that it was actually happening and couldn't be denied it was put down to it arriving before it was sent or non physical realities. This is stupid and I expect more from the esteemed men in science as some are of brilliant mind but have been brainwashed by space time warps. Wake up people!!! LeSage theory was actually fairly well developed, to the point where it made a number of testable experimental predictions. Those experimental observations were made and the model ruled out. This is *precisely* the way science should work, and did work. PD All i'm talking about is the dragging of the aether around the earth which was proven. Many theories have there good points but fail at certain other things. |
#370
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Why are you relativists on here?? This is a new theory web group??? If
anything comes up that even remotely contradicts current mainstream science, you start to argue. This is not a fair revue of theories. Oh by the way Phill, no offense but no one is going to buy your theory, you have to give it away and if it's any good it will be either buried if it contradicts the accepted laws or looked at. But to be honest from what you have stated it's not too great. Don't quit your day job just yet. |
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 |