FR vs. GR and a century of experiments

It comes down to this final showdown. FR predicts gravitational time
dilation measurements anywhere in the solar system with infinite
precision and an accuracy limited only by the instruments used.

Important mathematics will be required to achieve this but the
foundations is outlined in the following paper:
http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...ci_physics.pdf

(The text was corrected according the Dr. Higgins remarks but the
legends and images remain unmodified)

I will be Harvard this Saturday and thank you very much opening the
doors to new theories.

Phil Bouchard wrote on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:34:54 -0700:

Your nonsense was already noticed before.

It comes down to this final showdown. FR predicts gravitational time
dilation measurements anywhere in the solar system with infinite
precision

Whow, How misguided you look!

and an accuracy limited only by the instruments used.

Important mathematics will be required to achieve this but the
foundations is outlined in the following paper:
http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...ci_physics.pdf

(The text was corrected according the Dr. Higgins remarks but the
legends and images remain unmodified)

I will be Harvard this Saturday and thank you very much opening the
doors to new theories.





--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/

BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/p...encetoday.html

On Sep 29, 4:34*am, Phil Bouchard wrote:
It comes down to this final showdown. *

Well, Phil, it seems that your promise to walk away from this
community and to seek your fortune among computer scientists and
astronomers was short-lived. Tell me, Phil, when you ran away from
home with your belongings in a kerchief, did you turn around and go
home within the hour?

FR predicts gravitational time
dilation measurements anywhere in the solar system with infinite
precision and an accuracy limited only by the instruments used.

Which has no real bearing on the metrics that science uses to judge
the value of a theory, Phil, as has been explained to you. You took
that advice and sniffed. I don't know why you believe that the
scientific community will have changed its mind since the last time
you checked.


Important mathematics will be required to achieve this but the
foundations is outlined in the following paper:http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...ci_physics.pdf

(The text was corrected according the Dr. Higgins remarks but the
legends and images remain unmodified)

I will be Harvard this Saturday and thank you very much opening the
doors to new theories.

Dear Phil Bouchard:

On Sep 29, 2:34*am, Phil Bouchard wrote:
It comes down to this final showdown.

Good, that means you will take up a real hobby, rather than confusing
the naieve.

*FR predicts gravitational time dilation
measurements anywhere in the solar system
with infinite precision

Then it is a classical theory, and is inherently wrong. Go play
pinochle. We already have a useful theory that covers this space, and
is more flexible than yours.

and an accuracy limited only by the instruments
used.

Important mathematics will be required to
achieve this but the foundations is outlined in
the following paper:

.... substituting a more appropriate link
http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.2554

(The text was corrected according the Dr.
Higgins remarks but the legends and images
remain unmodified)

I will be Harvard this Saturday and thank you very
much opening the doors to new theories.

And we thank you for taking up another hobby.

David A. Smith

Phil Bouchard wrote:

It comes down to this final showdown. FR predicts gravitational time
dilation measurements anywhere in the solar system with infinite
precision and an accuracy limited only by the instruments used.

This is amazing. You again demonstrate FR is numerology, you
show your incorrect gps predictions, your dark matter section
was a complete hoot with it wild leaps and unsupported
assertions. If you see any science types, they will get
a good laugh out of this.


Important mathematics will be required to achieve this but the
foundations is outlined in the following paper:
http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...ci_physics.pdf

(The text was corrected according the Dr. Higgins remarks but the
legends and images remain unmodified)

I will be Harvard this Saturday and thank you very much opening the
doors to new theories.

PD wrote:
On Sep 29, 4:34 am, Phil Bouchard wrote:
It comes down to this final showdown.

Well, Phil, it seems that your promise to walk away from this
community and to seek your fortune among computer scientists and
astronomers was short-lived.

The last time I checked you were the one backstabbing your own partners
so I took the opportunity to take a break.

Tell me, Phil, when you ran away from
home with your belongings in a kerchief, did you turn around and go
home within the hour?

I am farther from home than you ever been yourself for a longer time.

Which has no real bearing on the metrics that science uses to judge
the value of a theory, Phil, as has been explained to you. You took
that advice and sniffed. I don't know why you believe that the
scientific community will have changed its mind since the last time
you checked.

My advise was a $10,000 bet on FR against GR after a precise fudge
factor adjustment with the help of a mathematician and all I could hear
was crickets.

doug wrote:

This is amazing. You again demonstrate FR is numerology, you
show your incorrect gps predictions, your dark matter section
was a complete hoot with it wild leaps and unsupported
assertions. If you see any science types, they will get
a good laugh out of this.

And this comes from somebody I reiterate again:

"I wouldn't bet $5 on GR" -- Doug

Juan R. González-�lvarez wrote:
Phil Bouchard wrote on Tue, 29 Sep 2009 02:34:54 -0700:

Your nonsense was already noticed before.

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!" -- Albert Einstein

Whow, How misguided you look!

"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research,
would it?" -- Albert Einstein

dlzc wrote:
Dear Phil Bouchard:

Good, that means you will take up a real hobby, rather than confusing
the naieve.

What is really confusing is for those knowing only Einstein changing
their mindset.

Then it is a classical theory, and is inherently wrong. Go play
pinochle. We already have a useful theory that covers this space, and
is more flexible than yours.

Well no because it actually also predicts the real size of the Universe,
its faith and will solve focal points of gravitational lensings easily.

[...]

doug wrote:

[...]

I am farther from home than you ever been yourself for a longer time.

Another unsupported assertion from phil.

PD lives in Texas and likely is from Texas also.

[...]