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
  #361  
Old March 30th 09, 07:48 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Greg Neill[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 605
Default 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  
Old March 30th 09, 07:53 PM 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:

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  
Old March 30th 09, 09:23 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
bobd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default 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  
Old March 30th 09, 10:15 PM 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

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  
Old March 30th 09, 10:15 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
bobd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default 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  
Old March 30th 09, 10:27 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default 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  
Old March 30th 09, 10:40 PM 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



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  
Old March 30th 09, 10:47 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
bobd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default 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  
Old March 30th 09, 10:50 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
bobd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default 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  
Old March 30th 09, 10:57 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
bobd
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default 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

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 01:23 AM.


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.