|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
Greetings:
I have polished my equations inside my book and I would like to know if anybody is willing reviewing it for a price. The mathematics are perfectly valid but I would like further experimental assertions. To introduce its concept better, here are its postulates: + The incident gravity flux crossing a body at high velocities relative to its source induces dilation of time + The gravitational acceleration residuum is also responsible and exactly proportional to the dilation of time + A mass reference frame only can rotate if overwhelmed by a greater gravitational field Which will lead to the consequent precepts: + The speed of light and the time dilation are correlative + Galactic scale masses are subject to their own frame of reference And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation formulas respectively used a + 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2) + (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2 One of a very controversial findings relates to the time taken for a light ray traveling from here to Alpha Centauri. Albert Einstein speculated 4 years and I estimate at least 7 days... but far from 4 years! The proof can be found inside the book. What we see inside the solar system is negligible but outside is very different. The latest version can be found he https://www.createspace.com/3370163 Regards, -Phil |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation formulas respectively used a + 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2) + (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2 You are still the same idiot |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
"Dono" wrote in message ... On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote: And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation formulas respectively used a + 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2) + (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2 You are still the same idiot Say something smarter, please. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
"Dono" wrote in message ... On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote: And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation formulas respectively used a + 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2) + (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2 You are still the same idiot Let's get this over with. Lorentz transformations doesn't make any sense and what these are represent ratios over their maximas if you haven't noticed yet. Time dilation and gravitational time dilation are different in the sense the former is incident and the latter is a result of acceleration. But the details doesn't matter, just pass on to the next step in your understandings. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
Phil Bouchard wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message ... On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote: And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation formulas respectively used a + 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2) + (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2 You are still the same idiot Say something smarter, please. You are steadfastly and undeniably the very same idiot. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
Phil Bouchard wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message ... On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote: And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation formulas respectively used a + 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2) + (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2 You are still the same idiot Let's get this over with. Lorentz transformations doesn't make any sense Translation: "I don't understand relativity, the math is too hard." and what these are represent ratios over their maximas if you haven't noticed yet. Word salad. Time dilation and gravitational time dilation are different in the sense the former is incident and the latter is a result of acceleration. More salad. Where's the beef? But the details doesn't matter, just pass on to the next step in your understandings. Some sort of philosophical jibe??? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
On Feb 28, 9:28 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message ... On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote: And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation formulas respectively used a + 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2) + (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2 You are still the same idiot Let's get this over with. Lorentz transformations doesn't make any sense You mean they don't make any sense to YOU, right? What can be done, you are a hopeless imbecile, how can the Lorentz transforms remedy this situation? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
On Feb 28, 7:55*pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
[snip idiocy] Nobody will ever buy your book. Go away. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
What we see inside the solar system is negligible but outside is very different. The latest version can be found hehttps://www.createspace.com/3370163 Regards, -Phil Ahh, I see, you got conned into spending your money for a self- published book that no one buys :-) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message news:3Ppql.536829$TT4.412269@attbi_s22... This is pure garbage! Cripes, even this statement is wrong, "Cosmic acceleration faster than c", comparing acceleration to speed! What lunacy! "In this book a new mathematical model is introduced that resolves and explains behaviors previously stated. Several misunderstood concepts of the Universe are then being clarified following our model, which accepts tunneling effects and also includes a disproof on the needfulness of the ambient dark matter populating galaxies". Oh, there is misunderstanding all right, GROSS misunderstanding on the part of the author, Phil Bouchard. Up to know this is the smartest comment I have heard... You guys need to go back in school and learn carefully the easiest part of mathematics called: calculus. Seriously. Are there any mathematicians over here or should I move on to the mathematics newsgroup? You guys are ridiculizing physics. I am offering you something that make sense over someone else's blunders and incompetence in maths or engineering (applied science) and all I can hear is how I can't understand Lorentz transformations. First Mr. Lorentz isn't even a mathematician so I don't see what I can learn from him. Seriously, you are ridiculising the advancement of science everyday. I'm telling you emiiting a message to Alpha Centauri takes between 7 days and 4 years but certainly not the latter. Are you guys payed by some community to maintain Einstein's pride over the years? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
25% OFF -- Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 28th 09 09:54 AM |
Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 4 | January 26th 09 09:00 PM |
Request for Review of a pre-print book titled, "Fundamental Nature ofMatter and Fields" | GSS | Astronomy Misc | 74 | July 12th 08 04:34 PM |
[WWW] Request for Review of a pre-print book titled, "Fundamental Nature of | GSS | Research | 0 | May 21st 08 10:09 AM |
Is the universe infinite or finite? | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 21 | December 17th 05 09:38 AM |