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
  #861  
Old April 9th 09, 02:52 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:


And you don't see a problem with that?



No.


Which demonstrates you have never studied any physics.
  #862  
Old April 9th 09, 02:52 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:

Sam Wormley wrote:

[...]

The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove
to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be
developed will not require an "absolutely stationary
space" provided with special properties, nor assign a
velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which
electromagnetic processes take place.



Like I said before, given that the Earth is the center of the universe
no aether can ever be detected from its surface using low precision
instruments.


Do you have any clue whow stupid this sounds?
  #863  
Old April 9th 09, 09:00 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

doug wrote:

Do you have any clue whow stupid this sounds?


"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."
-- Albert Einstein

"If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor." --
Albert Einstein
  #864  
Old April 9th 09, 09:05 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

Sam Wormley wrote:
Phil Bouchard wrote:

*** GR ***
theta = 4Gm / rc^2


Phil -- How did you derive this algebraic expression?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita...time_curvature


What observables (and what are their sources) do/did you plug
into this expression? What care did you give to the retermination
of r and m? Have you ever done a calculation? Show us your calculation
units and all.


This is GR, not FR. I'll give an inside the sphere calculation that
will handle the fudge factor, which makes a big difference.
  #865  
Old April 9th 09, 09:12 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

On Apr 9, 12:00*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:

Do you have any clue whow stupid this sounds?


"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."
-- Albert Einstein

"If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor." --
Albert Einstein


You are not Einstein.
  #866  
Old April 9th 09, 09:18 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

Sam Wormley wrote:

You have yet to show that you can do a calculation, Phil. Perhaps
you might try that. Show the exact equation and each number and
and its source (with physical units) and show the calculation
step by step. You have never done that, nor do you have the education
to do so.


Well up to now in 2 months I get the same answers as Einstein, and
without plagiarizing.

It looks like my education is better than Doug's since Doug thinks a
paradox is science.
  #867  
Old April 9th 09, 09:43 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

Greg Neill wrote:

[...]

How can that be if the distance from the center of gravitation
(the Earth's center -- remember, we're only considering the
Earth's contribution here) is the same? Are you saying that
the Earth's field is not spherically symmetric?


Because the Sun's influence is slightly different behind and ahead of
the Earth. The distance from the Sun never is the same either.

Empirically, the gravitational influence on clocks depends
only on the radial distance. Satellite clocks bear this out,
as do the network of atomic clocks on the Earth's surface.
So your theory is shown to be wrong versus empirical data
yet again.


All that is given is the average of both kinetic and gravitational time
dilations after one day of operation. Each instants are different.

[...]

GR turns out the answers without the need for buggy computer
code or mysterious fudge factors that seem to vary from point
to point and moment to moment.


The fudge factor is an ambient influence and needs to be calculated once
for each scale. The solar system fudge factor is around 2.5e45 km^2/m^2
and will be good until the death of the Milky Way.

Sorry, but I can't see that at all from the nature of your
mathematical expressions. And I haven't seen you wield
calculus at all, so it's a moot point.


Give me an address or PO box and I will send a copy. I am not sharing
this over here.

Is this an example of your professional programming skills?
The first three links on the page return a "You are not
authorized to view this page" message. Sloppy.


I deleted the files because I don't use this homepage anymore. This
dates back from 2003 as you can see.
  #868  
Old April 9th 09, 09:48 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

doug wrote:

Which demonstrates you have never studied any physics.


Since Doug only knows about blunders and paradoxes, he thinks being
wrong is perfectly valid.
  #869  
Old April 9th 09, 10:17 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:
Greg Neill wrote:

[...]

How can that be if the distance from the center of gravitation
(the Earth's center -- remember, we're only considering the
Earth's contribution here) is the same? Are you saying that
the Earth's field is not spherically symmetric?


Because the Sun's influence is slightly different behind and ahead of
the Earth. The distance from the Sun never is the same either.

Empirically, the gravitational influence on clocks depends
only on the radial distance. Satellite clocks bear this out,
as do the network of atomic clocks on the Earth's surface.
So your theory is shown to be wrong versus empirical data
yet again.


All that is given is the average of both kinetic and gravitational time
dilations after one day of operation. Each instants are different.


You've ignored the fact that I clearly stated that *only*
the Earth's contribution was being considered. The Sun (and
anything else) is not relevant here. Or are you saying that
your theory is incapable of handling a lone mass?

Further, your statement about the GR results being a daily
average is false. GPS clocks are in continuous use, and
such fluctuations through the day would be obvious. The
same is true for the network of atomic clocks around the
globe. Where the "observer" is who is requesting clock
readings from other sites does not affect that site's
clocks.


[...]

GR turns out the answers without the need for buggy computer
code or mysterious fudge factors that seem to vary from point
to point and moment to moment.


The fudge factor is an ambient influence and needs to be calculated once
for each scale. The solar system fudge factor is around 2.5e45 km^2/m^2
and will be good until the death of the Milky Way.


That's a bold statement considering how often it's changed
already. Also, the Sun is not guaranteed to always be
in such a lonely neighborhood, and relatively close encounters
with other stars are probable.


Sorry, but I can't see that at all from the nature of your
mathematical expressions. And I haven't seen you wield
calculus at all, so it's a moot point.


Give me an address or PO box and I will send a copy. I am not sharing
this over here.


A kind offer, but I would prefer to discuss your work here.


Is this an example of your professional programming skills?
The first three links on the page return a "You are not
authorized to view this page" message. Sloppy.


I deleted the files because I don't use this homepage anymore. This
dates back from 2003 as you can see.


(!) Then why provide the link?


  #870  
Old April 9th 09, 10:32 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

Sam Wormley wrote:

I have a whole book of Einstein quotes...

Phil, you wrote, "...given that the Earth is the center of the
universe no aether can ever be detected from its surface using
low precision instruments".

What makes you think the earth is the center of the universe?


Because the MM experiment proved it.
 




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 10:00 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.