|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
"Greg Neill" wrote in message ... Translation: "I don't understand relativity, the math is too hard." There is nothing hard to understand, no have no idea. Au contraire you're the one who is bailing out. I gave you CLEAR equations that make sense and you still can't understand... Ultimate precision can only be found by quantum mechanics. Einstein came up with the equivalence principle. This is a weak understanding because he basically just realized a = Gm / r^2, which was already proven by Newton centuries ago. What he really did came up with is space contraction. Unfortunately there is no space contraction but gravitational time dilation. What I wrote is serious and I am willing to agree on a contract to add experimental evidence to the matter. [..] |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
What I wrote is serious and I am willing to agree on a contract to add experimental evidence to the matter. If you have experimental evidence that GR is wrong, you should publish it immediately. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
"Peter Webb" wrote in message ... What I wrote is serious and I am willing to agree on a contract to add experimental evidence to the matter. If you have experimental evidence that GR is wrong, you should publish it immediately. There is evidence called: dark matter, wormholes, cosmological constant, singularities, superstring, Dono. What I want is precision evidence. This means a database of measurements. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
"Phil Bouchard" wrote in message ... "Peter Webb" wrote in message ... What I wrote is serious and I am willing to agree on a contract to add experimental evidence to the matter. If you have experimental evidence that GR is wrong, you should publish it immediately. There is evidence called: dark matter, wormholes, cosmological constant, singularities, superstring, Dono. What I want is precision evidence. This means a database of measurements. If you have a theory which explains what we do know anywhere near as well as GR does, but makes different predictions to GR, and these are testable, then you should describe exactly what tests you would need to be run, what GR predicts, and what you predict. If its even vaguely plausible, somebody will test it, if only for the Nobel prize in physics that would result. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
"Peter Webb" wrote in message ... What I wrote is serious and I am willing to agree on a contract to add experimental evidence to the matter. If you have experimental evidence that GR is wrong, you should publish it immediately. Hahahahahaha! Invocation of proof #14! Wackypedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof lists: 1 Direct proof 2 Proof by induction 3 Proof by transposition 4 Proof by contradiction 5 Proof by construction 6 Proof by exhaustion 7 Probabilistic proof 8 Combinatorial proof 9 Nonconstructive proof 10 Elementary proof Not included: 11 Proof by "everybody knows" (proof by popular opinion). 12 Proof by "because I say so" (proof by assertion). 13 Proof by "it is written" (proof by appeal to authority). 14 Proof by "you prove it isn't!" (proof by simple denial). 15 Proof by "what about the tooth fairy?"(proof by irrelevance). 16 Proof by "You'r'n'asshole!" (proof by ad hominem attack). Proof 16 is my favourite, I use it often. It is very effective when used against proofs 11-15. Fight fire with fire, I say. Proofs 1-10 have me defeated, they prevent me from using proofs 11-16 and I have to bite the bullet and embarrass myself to win the argument (which I must do at all costs upon pain of death by diarrhea of the verbal kind). |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
"Peter Webb" wrote in message u... "Phil Bouchard" wrote in message ... "Peter Webb" wrote in message ... What I wrote is serious and I am willing to agree on a contract to add experimental evidence to the matter. If you have experimental evidence that GR is wrong, you should publish it immediately. There is evidence called: dark matter, wormholes, cosmological constant, singularities, superstring, Dono. What I want is precision evidence. This means a database of measurements. If you have a theory which explains what we do know anywhere near as well as GR does, but makes different predictions to GR, and these are testable, then you should describe exactly what tests you would need to be run, what GR predicts, and what you predict. Yes, that would be Newtonian Mechanics. If its even vaguely plausible, somebody will test it, if only for the Nobel prize in physics that would result. Oh really? How come I haven't got that prize yet? Let's see. You just used proof number 14, which I counter with proof number 16. Wackypedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof lists: 1 Direct proof 2 Proof by induction 3 Proof by transposition 4 Proof by contradiction 5 Proof by construction 6 Proof by exhaustion 7 Probabilistic proof 8 Combinatorial proof 9 Nonconstructive proof 10 Elementary proof Not included: 11 Proof by "everybody knows" (proof by popular opinion). 12 Proof by "because I say so" (proof by assertion). 13 Proof by "it is written" (proof by appeal to authority). 14 Proof by "you prove it isn't!" (proof by simple denial). 15 Proof by "what about the tooth fairy?"(proof by irrelevance). 16 Proof by "You'r'n'asshole!" (proof by ad hominem attack). Proof 16 is my favourite, I use it often. It is very effective when used against proofs 11-15. Fight fire with fire, I say. Proofs 1-10 have me defeated, they prevent me from using proofs 11-16 and I have to bite the bullet and embarrass myself to win the argument (which I must do at all costs upon pain of death by diarrhea of the verbal kind). |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
"Androcles" wrote in message ... "Peter Webb" wrote in message u... "Phil Bouchard" wrote in message ... "Peter Webb" wrote in message ... What I wrote is serious and I am willing to agree on a contract to add experimental evidence to the matter. If you have experimental evidence that GR is wrong, you should publish it immediately. There is evidence called: dark matter, wormholes, cosmological constant, singularities, superstring, Dono. What I want is precision evidence. This means a database of measurements. If you have a theory which explains what we do know anywhere near as well as GR does, but makes different predictions to GR, and these are testable, then you should describe exactly what tests you would need to be run, what GR predicts, and what you predict. Yes, that would be Newtonian Mechanics. Newtonian mechanics doesn't explain what happens in particle acceleraters. If its even vaguely plausible, somebody will test it, if only for the Nobel prize in physics that would result. Oh really? How come I haven't got that prize yet? Because you haven't come up with a theory that meets the requirements I listed. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
"Peter Webb" wrote in message ... "Androcles" wrote in message ... "Peter Webb" wrote in message u... "Phil Bouchard" wrote in message ... "Peter Webb" wrote in message ... What I wrote is serious and I am willing to agree on a contract to add experimental evidence to the matter. If you have experimental evidence that GR is wrong, you should publish it immediately. There is evidence called: dark matter, wormholes, cosmological constant, singularities, superstring, Dono. What I want is precision evidence. This means a database of measurements. If you have a theory which explains what we do know anywhere near as well as GR does, but makes different predictions to GR, and these are testable, then you should describe exactly what tests you would need to be run, what GR predicts, and what you predict. Yes, that would be Newtonian Mechanics. Newtonian mechanics doesn't explain what happens in particle acceleraters. Use of proof 15, countered by proof 14: Oh yes it does. and by proof 16 , Oh yes it does, you ****ing moron. See, that doubly proves you are wrong. Feel free to use any of proofs 1-10 and I might believe you. Have you explained Einstein's simple algebra to me yet? After all, you are the great teacher and it is very simple. Wackypedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof lists: 1 Direct proof 2 Proof by induction 3 Proof by transposition 4 Proof by contradiction 5 Proof by construction 6 Proof by exhaustion 7 Probabilistic proof 8 Combinatorial proof 9 Nonconstructive proof 10 Elementary proof Not included: 11 Proof by "everybody knows" (proof by popular opinion). 12 Proof by "because I say so" (proof by assertion). 13 Proof by "it is written" (proof by appeal to authority). 14 Proof by "you prove it isn't!" (proof by simple denial). 15 Proof by "what about the tooth fairy?"(proof by irrelevance). 16 Proof by "You'r'n'asshole!" (proof by ad hominem attack). Proof 16 is my favourite, I use it often. It is very effective when used against proofs 11-15. Fight fire with fire, I say. Proofs 1-10 have me defeated, they prevent me from using proofs 11-16 and I have to bite the bullet and embarrass myself to win the argument (which I must do at all costs upon pain of death by diarrhea of the verbal kind). |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
Why do particle accelerators work if SR is wrong ?
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism: Review Request
"Peter Webb" wrote in message u... Why do particle accelerators work if SR is wrong ? Who do bicycles work if Santa Claus doesn't give them to kids at Xmas? Anyway, LHC DOESN'T work. It broke the first time anyone tried it. I bet you £100 you hate having your illogical nonsense shoved back up your arse, you snipping little tord. Webb family? What are you, the baby? |
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 |