Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

Greg Neill wrote:

Why is this not a surprise? Phil's formula was shown to be
wrong and didn't produce the correspondence to empirical or
GR predicted values, so now he's discovered "neglected values"
and changed it. Result: confidence level in FR goes deeper
into the red.

It is pretty obvious that his formulae are cobbled together,
probably tinkered with in a spreadsheet until values that
look like they might be plausible arise. Notice that Phil
never posts or even outlines a derivation of his formulae.

If errors are found in the new version, Phil will startlingly
and fortuitously find even more "neglected values" to patch
that up. Pitiful.

Once again the more data I add to it, the more precise it gets. I try
using the minimum amount of data every time. It is similar to the
Archimedes' approximation of pi.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

Why is this not a surprise? Phil's formula was shown to be
wrong and didn't produce the correspondence to empirical or
GR predicted values, so now he's discovered "neglected values"
and changed it. Result: confidence level in FR goes deeper
into the red.

It is pretty obvious that his formulae are cobbled together,
probably tinkered with in a spreadsheet until values that
look like they might be plausible arise. Notice that Phil
never posts or even outlines a derivation of his formulae.

If errors are found in the new version, Phil will startlingly
and fortuitously find even more "neglected values" to patch
that up. Pitiful.

Once again the more data I add to it, the more precise it gets. I try
using the minimum amount of data every time. It is similar to the
Archimedes' approximation of pi.

Then by comparison GR is like pi itself -- one-time derived
formulae from first principles. Why futz around with crude
imitations when you can have the real thing?

So what kind of epicycles are you planning to graft on
next, Phil? Have you considered adding training wheels
and a bell?

doug wrote:

In other words, you fiddle with the spreadsheet until you get
closer to what the answer is and then call it a theory.
Your gps is still wrong by a lot.

You said yourself the GPS clocks precision goes down to +- 1e-9 s. This
is exactly where GR's discrepancy is.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:

In other words, you fiddle with the spreadsheet until you get
closer to what the answer is and then call it a theory.
Your gps is still wrong by a lot.

You said yourself the GPS clocks precision goes down to +- 1e-9 s. This
is exactly where GR's discrepancy is.

er, no. The GPS +- 1e-9s discrepacies are due to the irregular
mass distribution inherent in the Earth which causes the
satellite's orbit to vary slightly from nominal, and the mascons
themselves contribute tiny position varying GR time influences.

GR itself can do much better for "simpler" situations.

doug wrote:
Phil Bouchard wrote:

Once again the more data I add to it, the more precise it gets. I try
using the minimum amount of data every time. It is similar to the
Archimedes' approximation of pi.

In other words, you fiddle with the spreadsheet until you get
closer to what the answer is and then call it a theory.
Your gps is still wrong by a lot.

And for good reason. I've taken a closer look at Phil's
supposed formula for the time dilation factor. Here it is
again:

t_fr = ((n2*x2+m2*x2-2*i*n2*x-2*j*m2*x+i2*n2+j2*m2)*(y-i)2*(y-j)2) /
((x-i)2*(x-j)2*(n2*y2+m2*y2-2*i*n2*y-2*j*m2*y+i2*n2+j2*m2))

Whe
m = Mass of Earth
n = Mass of Sun
i = Location of the center of the Earth (from surface)
j = Location of the Sun (from Earth)
x = Location of clock (distance of the Moon)
y = Location of observer (surface of the Earth) or 0

Note that he doesn't say whether he's expecting the parameters
to be distances or coordinates in some coordinate system that
he hasn't specified, although the "definition" for the y
parameter is suggestive.

It turns out that the expression can be simplified to the
following:

n^2 m^2
------- + -------
(x-j)^2 (x-i)^2
t_fr = -----------------------
n^2 m^2
------- + -------
(y-j)^2 (y-i)^2

Note that he's *adding* the scaling factors associated with
the contributions from the individual masses m and n. Properly,
scaling factors are compounded by multiplying them.

Note the bizarre units for the individual scaling factor
contributions: kg^2/m^2.

Apparently his i,j,x,y are all values of coordinates rather
than distances (so that their differences result in distance
values), and the model therefore assumes that all the
components are collinear:


------(E)o------c--------------------------(S)-------------

E = Earth center
o = Observer
c = Clock
S = Sun center

It would be amusing to see how Phil sugests handling a 2-D
situation where the objects are not collinear. For example,
what if the clock were located at the distance of the Moon's
orbit but at right angles to the Earth-Sun line?

This formula has no hope of agreeing with GR results over any
given domain since the GR formulation involves square roots
and (correctly) multiplies and divides the appropriate scaling
factor contributions. (Again, Phil seems allergic to square
roots). It also makes no use of the gravitational parameter,
G, which _should_ be what determines the overall magnitude of
the effect with respect to the masses involved.

I wonder what "more data" Phil has added to his formula, given
that the locations of the players are already specified, along
with the required masses (*chuckle*).

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Greg Neill wrote:


Why is this not a surprise? Phil's formula was shown to be
wrong and didn't produce the correspondence to empirical or
GR predicted values, so now he's discovered "neglected values"
and changed it. Result: confidence level in FR goes deeper
into the red.

It is pretty obvious that his formulae are cobbled together,
probably tinkered with in a spreadsheet until values that
look like they might be plausible arise. Notice that Phil
never posts or even outlines a derivation of his formulae.

If errors are found in the new version, Phil will startlingly
and fortuitously find even more "neglected values" to patch
that up. Pitiful.


Once again the more data I add to it, the more precise it gets. I try
using the minimum amount of data every time. It is similar to the
Archimedes' approximation of pi.

In other words, you fiddle with the spreadsheet until you get
closer to what the answer is and then call it a theory.
Your gps is still wrong by a lot.

"doug" wrote
et...

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

And what about this: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html
S*

This is a perfect example of a crank trying to change both the universe
and history. It is a funny collection of stupidity and paranoia. He
refers to the magazine "Infinite Energy" which immediately marks the
writer as a complete crank. He shows his hatred of relativity and his
ignorance of Maxwell's equations.

The equations are by Heaviside: "Heaviside proved important results in
electromagnetism and vector calculus. He reduced Maxwell's 20 equations in
20 variables to 4 equations in 2 variables."

Maxwell and Heaviside assume that: "Electricity (as well as heat) was
originally understood to be a kind of fluid, and the names of certain
electric quantities (such as current) are derived from hydraulic
equivalents".
But the fluid was massless and incompressible. Now we know that electrons
have mass and are compressible (like gas). New Treatise should be written
(the gas analogy).

(Phil, do you have any idea about
maxwell's equations? Probably not because they show your "theory" to
be badly wrong as well). The homopolar generator is another of the
favorite crank things to misunderstand.

What is your answer on Vince Morgan's question: "If one were to take a
Faraday disk so that the magnets, of same or similar
diameter to the disk, were free to rotate without being actualy attatched to
the disk, would the magnets be inclined to rotate with the disk if current
was being drawn?"


You would be better served to get a textbook and read it. The most
complete book, for those of you who want to try to refute relativity
is Gravitation by James Hartle. This textbook will let you learn about
the math underlying relativity and all that you would have to do
to try to disprove it. Of course, if you just want to be taken as
a humorous crank, one of the thousands, then keep doing what you are
doing.

All theories are valid for some assumptions. So I do not disprove any. I
only see opprtunities for a new theories. For example:
The gas analogy.
S*

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


In other words, you fiddle with the spreadsheet until you get
closer to what the answer is and then call it a theory.
Your gps is still wrong by a lot.


You said yourself the GPS clocks precision goes down to +- 1e-9 s. This
is exactly where GR's discrepancy is.

You did not understand what I said. I said the correction varied
due to the orbital details having an effect on the relativitistic
terms. Your correction is still wrong by a huge amount. Are
you incapable of expressing the correction in terms of microseconds
per day?

Greg Neill wrote:

doug wrote:

Phil Bouchard wrote:


Once again the more data I add to it, the more precise it gets. I try
using the minimum amount of data every time. It is similar to the
Archimedes' approximation of pi.

In other words, you fiddle with the spreadsheet until you get
closer to what the answer is and then call it a theory.
Your gps is still wrong by a lot.


And for good reason. I've taken a closer look at Phil's
supposed formula for the time dilation factor. Here it is
again:

t_fr = ((n2*x2+m2*x2-2*i*n2*x-2*j*m2*x+i2*n2+j2*m2)*(y-i)2*(y-j)2) /
((x-i)2*(x-j)2*(n2*y2+m2*y2-2*i*n2*y-2*j*m2*y+i2*n2+j2*m2))

Whe
m = Mass of Earth
n = Mass of Sun
i = Location of the center of the Earth (from surface)
j = Location of the Sun (from Earth)
x = Location of clock (distance of the Moon)
y = Location of observer (surface of the Earth) or 0

Note that he doesn't say whether he's expecting the parameters
to be distances or coordinates in some coordinate system that
he hasn't specified, although the "definition" for the y
parameter is suggestive.

It turns out that the expression can be simplified to the
following:

n^2 m^2
------- + -------
(x-j)^2 (x-i)^2
t_fr = -----------------------
n^2 m^2
------- + -------
(y-j)^2 (y-i)^2

Note that he's *adding* the scaling factors associated with
the contributions from the individual masses m and n. Properly,
scaling factors are compounded by multiplying them.

This is like watching sausage being made, you really do not want
to know what goes into it.

Also notice the lack of a velocity term.


Note the bizarre units for the individual scaling factor
contributions: kg^2/m^2.

Apparently his i,j,x,y are all values of coordinates rather
than distances (so that their differences result in distance
values), and the model therefore assumes that all the
components are collinear:


------(E)o------c--------------------------(S)-------------

E = Earth center
o = Observer
c = Clock
S = Sun center

It would be amusing to see how Phil sugests handling a 2-D
situation where the objects are not collinear. For example,
what if the clock were located at the distance of the Moon's
orbit but at right angles to the Earth-Sun line?

This formula has no hope of agreeing with GR results over any
given domain since the GR formulation involves square roots
and (correctly) multiplies and divides the appropriate scaling
factor contributions. (Again, Phil seems allergic to square
roots).

Two things about square roots for phil. 1. They slow down
his computer and 2. He probably did not get that far in math.

It also makes no use of the gravitational parameter,
G, which _should_ be what determines the overall magnitude of
the effect with respect to the masses involved.

He did not get that far in his physics class either.

I wonder what "more data" Phil has added to his formula, given
that the locations of the players are already specified, along
with the required masses (*chuckle*).

Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:


"doug" wrote
et...


Szczepan Bia³ek wrote:

And what about this: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/edit.html
S*


This is a perfect example of a crank trying to change both the universe
and history. It is a funny collection of stupidity and paranoia. He
refers to the magazine "Infinite Energy" which immediately marks the
writer as a complete crank. He shows his hatred of relativity and his
ignorance of Maxwell's equations.


The equations are by Heaviside: "Heaviside proved important results in
electromagnetism and vector calculus. He reduced Maxwell's 20 equations
in 20 variables to 4 equations in 2 variables."

Maxwell and Heaviside assume that: "Electricity (as well as heat) was
originally understood to be a kind of fluid, and the names of certain
electric quantities (such as current) are derived from hydraulic
equivalents".
But the fluid was massless and incompressible. Now we know that
electrons have mass and are compressible (like gas). New Treatise should
be written (the gas analogy).

You are aware that there has been work done in physics in the last
century or so?

(Phil, do you have any idea about
maxwell's equations? Probably not because they show your "theory" to
be badly wrong as well). The homopolar generator is another of the
favorite crank things to misunderstand.


What is your answer on Vince Morgan's question: "If one were to take a
Faraday disk so that the magnets, of same or similar
diameter to the disk, were free to rotate without being actualy
attatched to
the disk, would the magnets be inclined to rotate with the disk if current
was being drawn?"

Plug it into maxwell's equations and it will tell you.


You would be better served to get a textbook and read it. The most
complete book, for those of you who want to try to refute relativity
is Gravitation by James Hartle. This textbook will let you learn about
the math underlying relativity and all that you would have to do
to try to disprove it. Of course, if you just want to be taken as
a humorous crank, one of the thousands, then keep doing what you are
doing.


All theories are valid for some assumptions. So I do not disprove any. I
only see opprtunities for a new theories. For example:
The gas analogy.

Any new theory has to match all current experiments. The more
experiments that have been done, the tighter the requirements for any
new theory. This means that the new theory must look exactly like
the old one in its realm of validity.

S*