Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

"doug" wrote in message
et...

[...]

No, there is no evidence of that except that you do not like
it. The world is not going to change for you.

Is that all you can bring to denfend something that is mathematically
incorrect, proven to be logically wrong, does not fit with QM, predicts
illusional theories with impratical usages that can never be disproved and
fills science with false hopes such as singularities, wormholes, length
contraction, infinite masses, velocity cap of 3e8 m/s, the observed Hubble's
sphere inconsistency, time travel in the past and consequently an infinite
amount of universes created by God on the fly and dark matter.

You brought up 0 intellectual scientific arguments and your failure to
defend your propheties makes them invalid. Science will silently push you
and your fidels aside, just like Einstein did when experimental observations
disproved most of his papers. That makes QM, mathematics, engineering and
computer science not agreeing with Einstein the miracle and his mediocre
mathematical skillset and spaghetti logic.

"Phil Bouchard" wrote in message
...

"doug" wrote in message
et...

[...]

No, there is no evidence of that except that you do not like
it. The world is not going to change for you.

Is that all you can bring to denfend something that is mathematically
incorrect,

No, its not.

proven to be logically wrong,

No, it has not.

does not fit with QM,

SR fits in beautifully with QM; indeed, without SR, QM does not produce the
observed emmission spectral lines; SR is needed for QM to produce the
results that are produced in thousands of laboratries and observatories
world wide undertaking spectroscopic analysis.


predicts illusional theories with impratical usages that can never be
disproved and fills science with false hopes such as singularities,
wormholes,

SR does not predict either singularities or wormholes.



length contraction, infinite masses,

SR does not predict infinite masses.

velocity cap of 3e8 m/s, the observed Hubble's sphere inconsistency,

What Hubble sphere inconsistency, and how does it relate to SR?

time travel in the past

SR does not predict time travel into the past.

and consequently an infinite amount of universes created by God on the fly

SR does not predict an infinite number of Universes, whether created on the
fly by God or in any other manner.


and dark matter.


SR does not predict dark matter.


You brought up 0 intellectual scientific arguments and your failure to
defend your propheties makes them invalid. Science will silently push you
and your fidels aside, just like Einstein did when experimental
observations disproved most of his papers. That makes QM, mathematics,
engineering and computer science not agreeing with Einstein the miracle
and his mediocre mathematical skillset and spaghetti logic.


Well, there are obviously lots of scientific arguments for SR, as well as
huge amounts of direct experimental evidence. Like the fact that particle
accelerators work.

If you want scientific arguments, read some physics textbooks.

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

[...]

SR does not predict either singularities or wormholes.

Why are you subjecting the discussion with SR? I am referring to Einstein,
all his essays and faithful disciples spreading it.

[...]

Well, there are obviously lots of scientific arguments for SR, as well as
huge amounts of direct experimental evidence. Like the fact that particle
accelerators work.

If you want scientific arguments, read some physics textbooks.

You skipped many posts but time dilation is enough to explain all
relativistic effects. That's all there is to it.

On Mar 18, 9:45*pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...



In this group of mostly incest mutated mindsets, sadly you'll not get
very far.

Indeed their comments are anything else than scientific at this stage. *I
have more work awaiting in algorithms for parallel computation using the
theory and discussions with mathematicians anyways.

If FTL can be objectively measured and peer replicated, where's the
quantum tunneling question or doubt about FTL coming from?

Either it's happening, or it isn't.

~ BG

Phil Bouchard wrote:

"doug" wrote in message
et...

[...]


No, there is no evidence of that except that you do not like
it. The world is not going to change for you.


Is that all you can bring to denfend something that is mathematically
incorrect,

Your assertion with no proof.

proven to be logically wrong,

Your assertion with no proof.

does not fit with QM, predicts
illusional theories with impratical usages that can never be disproved and
fills science with false hopes such as singularities, wormholes, length
contraction, infinite masses, velocity cap of 3e8 m/s, the observed Hubble's
sphere inconsistency, time travel in the past and consequently an infinite
amount of universes created by God on the fly and dark matter.

Your dislikes and delusions are not scientific arguments.


You brought up 0 intellectual scientific arguments and your failure to
defend your propheties makes them invalid.

Gee, all I have is a century of experimental evidence and the current
quantum mechanics to support me. You have your hatred and jealousy
of Einstein on your side. Oh, I forgot, you had your freshman physics
class that you did not understand. And a spreadsheet with lots of
digits.

Science will silently push you
and your fidels aside, just like Einstein did when experimental observations
disproved most of his papers. That makes QM, mathematics, engineering and
computer science not agreeing with Einstein the miracle and his mediocre
mathematical skillset and spaghetti logic.

Your stupidity is not a scientific arguement. You have only shown you
have no clue what relativity is. You have presented no evidence of any
problems just your dislikes. Those do not get you anywhere in science.
CS maybe but not science.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

[...]


SR does not predict either singularities or wormholes.


Why are you subjecting the discussion with SR? I am referring to Einstein,
all his essays and faithful disciples spreading it.

The cranks all descend into the "faithful disciples" type of dispair
after awhile. You have gotten there pretty quickly but you are even
less knowledgeable than most of the cranks here.

[...]


Well, there are obviously lots of scientific arguments for SR, as well as
huge amounts of direct experimental evidence. Like the fact that particle
accelerators work.

If you want scientific arguments, read some physics textbooks.


You skipped many posts but time dilation is enough to explain all
relativistic effects. That's all there is to it.

So we have your unsupported assertion and that takes care of a century
of evidence. If you could show this, you would. You cannot. You are
only blustering.

On Mar 20, 12:45*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 18, 9:45*pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:

"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

In this group of mostly incest mutated mindsets, sadly you'll not get
very far.

Indeed their comments are anything else than scientific at this stage. *I
have more work awaiting in algorithms for parallel computation using the
theory and discussions with mathematicians anyways.

If FTL can be objectively measured and peer replicated, where's the
quantum tunneling question or doubt about FTL coming from?

Either it's happening, or it isn't.

*~ BG

It is like killing a werewolf only to discover it's a wolf, or
catching a vampire only to discover it's a bat, yet the uneducated
will still believe in superstition.

Similarly, FTL has been shown repeatedly but relativists continue to
hang on to a superstition of a lightspeed maximum.

On Mar 19, 7:58*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Dorn.Strich wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:59 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Dorn.Strich wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:23 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
* *David, how do you see non-locality as appears in the form of
* *entanglement, contradicting any prediction of relativity? Be
* *specific please.
First of all, do not qualify non-locality as if it only occurs in the
context of entanglement (unless that is how far your pitiful
understanding goes). *Non-locality is INTRINSIC to QM; whereas
relativity is fully local. *Thus QM invalidates relativity and
relativity invalidates QM. *
* *How? Be specific. All you are doing is throwing about a bunch
* *of words. Specifically, what prediction of relativity is contradicted?

See my reply to PD.

* *Specifically, David, what prediction of relativity is contradicted
* *by the quantum mechanics or entanglement?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We need not go into predictions. It is all simple and
straightforward. The very postulate of relativity that light speed is
constant and is the maximum velocity is contradicted by non-locality
of QM. To avoid misunderstanding, tell us how you define non-
locality. I get the impression your screws are loose in this topic.

On Mar 19, 7:55*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Strich.Nein wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:41 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Dorn.Strich wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:10 pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 19, 7:58 am, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:
On Mar 19, 10:24 am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Dorn.Strich wrote:
Relativity occupied a useless and redundant position. *No replacement
is necessary. *Straight to the trash bin it goes.
* *Translation: David doesn't understand relativity.
Translation: Wormley does not understand quantum mechanics and finds
comfort in the simple childish geometry of relativity.
Describe the WKB approximation in your own words.
Explain what Berry's phase is, and how it is related to the WKB
approximation.
If you can't do either of those, you don't really 'understand' quantum
mechanics nearly as much as you think you do.
Example: Wormley cannot grasp non-locality, a feature of quantum
mechanics which relativity is clueless about.
Example: Dave cannot answer questions about QM that require non-
shallow levels of study and understanding.
Example: Dave can't solve any QM system.
Example: Dave doesn't know what a wave function is.
Watch Eric display the full spectrum of symptoms of anti-social
personality disorder. *
* *Eric's point is that you, David, don't have sufficient knowledge
* *about QM to answer the questions. The implication is that you are
* *in no position to condemn relativity.

He throws those questions as if they are

rocks. *One can almost feel the aggression in his reply. *I am amused
how the flunkie student has the nerve to start asking questions.
* *As it turns out, Eric has done rather well as a physics undergraduate.
* *I look forward to his continued enlightenment in these newsgroups.

Since we are merely throwing questions, here is a little one for the
flunkie: How can you reconcile quantum non-locality with relativistic
locality?
* *In fact there is an article in March 2009 issue of Sci Am
* *that makes that argument that the universe is non-local as
* *was assumed by Einstein... but I would like to point out
* *that that argument is far from over--and that, so far, special
* *relativity is holding its own.

* *That article concludes with...

* *"Quantum-mechanical wave functions cannot
* *be represented mathematically in anything smaller
* *than a mind-bogglingly high-dimensional
* *space called a configuration space. If, as some argue,
* *wave functions need to be thought of as concrete
* *physical objects, then we need to take seriously
* *the idea that the world’s history plays itself
* *out not in the three-dimensional space of our everyday
* *experience or the four-dimensional spacetime
* *of special relativity but rather this gigantic
* *and unfamiliar configuration space, out of which
* *the illusion of three-dimensionality somehow
* *emerges. Our three-dimensional idea of locality
* *would need to be understood as emergent as well.
* *The nonlocality of quantum physics might be
* *our window into this deeper level of reality.

* *"The status of special relativity, just more than
* *a century after it was presented to the world, is
* *suddenly a radically open and rapidly developing
* *question. This situation has come about because
* *physicists and philosophers have finally followed
* *through on the loose ends of Einstein’s longneglected
* *argument with quantum mechanics—
* *an irony-laden further proof of Einstein’s genius.
* *The diminished guru may very well have been
* *wrong just where we thought he was right and
* *right just where we thought he was wrong. We
* *may, in fact, see the universe through a glass not
* *quite so darkly as has too long been insisted".

* *Stay tuned!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sam, your calendar is retarded. *It is the February issue, not March.
Keep your head glued together. *I've already read and refuted that
article:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/100c2eb262c...

Einstein never thought of the universe as non-local. *He described
'non-local' as 'spooky', as a child would when confronted with the
unknown. *He postulated that the universe was local. *This has been
recorded for posterity in his infamous EPR paradox. *Are you familiar
with EPR, Sam?

* *laughing

* *In your dreams, David, in your dreams!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sam, you are correct. In my dreams you are familiar with EPR. In
reality, obviously you are not.

Let me clarify a few things. Do you misinterpret Einstein's statement
of "spooky action at a distance" as implying he believed in non-
locality?

Also, do you agree with PD's statement that "non-local effects do not
propagate non-locally but locally" ?

On Mar 20, 8:24*am, "Dorn.Strich" wrote:
On Mar 19, 7:58*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:



Dorn.Strich wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:59 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Dorn.Strich wrote:
On Mar 19, 12:23 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
* *David, how do you see non-locality as appears in the form of
* *entanglement, contradicting any prediction of relativity? Be
* *specific please.
First of all, do not qualify non-locality as if it only occurs in the
context of entanglement (unless that is how far your pitiful
understanding goes). *Non-locality is INTRINSIC to QM; whereas
relativity is fully local. *Thus QM invalidates relativity and
relativity invalidates QM. *
* *How? Be specific. All you are doing is throwing about a bunch
* *of words. Specifically, what prediction of relativity is contradicted?

See my reply to PD.

* *Specifically, David, what prediction of relativity is contradicted
* *by the quantum mechanics or entanglement?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

We need not go into predictions. *It is all simple and
straightforward. *The very postulate of relativity that light speed is
constant and is the maximum velocity is contradicted by non-locality
of QM.

Explain how.

*To avoid misunderstanding, tell us how you define non-
locality. *I get the impression your screws are loose in this topic.

Now, see, I asked David if he wanted a reference to look up what
"nonlocal" means to a physicist. He couldn't summon the courage to ask
me for it, so he's going to you instead.

Childish, childish manipulation maneuvers.

PD