Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

On Mar 29, 11:16*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Peter Webb wrote:

The Relativistic Ion Collider accelerates particles to 99.995% of the
speed of light (http://www.bnl.gov/RHIC/fascinating.htm) in which case
1- v^2/c^2 = about 10^-4.

Special Relativity produces a time dilation of 1/sqrt(10^-4) = 100, FR
produces a time dilation of 1/(10^-4) or 10,000, some 100 times larger
than predicted by SR.

I don't know exactly what experimental error they have in measuring
particle half-lives at the RIC, but I bet its less than a factor of 100
out, which is what FR is.

Well we need considering the relative error of both the tools used
measuring the speed of the particle, the exact moment it starts decaying
and its absolute death.

Even if FR's time dilation precision was wrong, SR is still wrong. *But
FR's gravitational time dilation is independent from all this regardless.

People who don't know the theory or the evidence that supports it have
no right to claim it is wrong.

"Phil Bouchard" wrote in message
...
Peter Webb wrote:

The Relativistic Ion Collider accelerates particles to 99.995% of the
speed of light (http://www.bnl.gov/RHIC/fascinating.htm) in which case 1-
v^2/c^2 = about 10^-4.

Special Relativity produces a time dilation of 1/sqrt(10^-4) = 100, FR
produces a time dilation of 1/(10^-4) or 10,000, some 100 times larger
than predicted by SR.

I don't know exactly what experimental error they have in measuring
particle half-lives at the RIC, but I bet its less than a factor of 100
out, which is what FR is.

Well we need considering the relative error of both the tools used
measuring the speed of the particle, the exact moment it starts decaying
and its absolute death.


Are you seriously suggesting that the experimental error when measuring how
far particles travel before they decay could be out by a factor of 100 ?

That the difference between something travelling say 4 inches and 30 feet.
When you are measuring the length of a line that is 4" long, experimental
error is 3.9" or 4.1", not 30 feet.

Your theory is clearly and obviously wrong; its a factor of 100 times out in
its calculations.

Better recall your book and issue an apology.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

Contradicted by empirical measurement of muon half life.

What are the measurements and what is the relative error of the tools?

Do your own legwork. Google is your friend.
The point is that your theory is empirically wrong and
no amount of waffling on your part is going to save it.


Relative gravitational time dilation:
t_f = r_2^2 / r_1^2 * t_o

Utter nonesense, as there's no term for mass in that equation.
What do the radii refer to?

The radius of the observed object versus the radius of the observer.
This is a representation involving 1 planet only and the need for a mass
not required.

The radius of the observer? You mean that the observer's
waist size determines the amount of time dilation in your
theory? Amazing. Let's assume you meant the distance from
the center of mass of the gravitating object (planet, say).

So, according to you, the time dilation factor depends only
on the radial distances from the planet center. Thus, a
body of any mass or size would exhibit the same time dilation
given the distances r_1 and r_2, with r_1 being the radial
distance of the observer and r_2 the radial distance of the
object.

The Moon averages about 384400km from the Earth, or about
60 Earth radii. According to your theory then, time should
be moving faster at the distance of the Moon by a factor of
60^2, or 3600. How did the Apollo atronauts carry enough
food to make the trip? A two week journey translates into
about 138 years.

A geostationary orbit at an altitude of 35786km has an orbital
radius of about 6.6 Earth radii. So according to your theory,
they should experience a time dilation of about 44 times
faster than things down here on Earth.


Pure gobbledegook. You have not defined the values or significance
of any of the paramers.

This is a great representation and can be used for multiple scales. The
definition of the variables can be explained by Doug.

Why do you delete all the context of replies, removing your
equations and statements that prompted the comments? Are
you trying to obfuscate things?

Here's your equation again:

(i^2*j^2*(n^2*x^3-j*n^2*x^2-i*n^2*x^2+i*j*n^2*x-2*k^2*m^2*x+j*k^2*m^2+i*k^2*
m^2)) / ((i^2*j^2*n^2+j^2*k^2*m^2+i^2*k^2*m^2)v(x-i)*(x-j))

What are i,j,k,m,n, and just to be certain, x and v? What's the
frame of reference? What are the units?

Doug will not be able to provide the definitions of the variables
because you haven't posted them. Or, are you claiming that Doug
is a mind reader?


Not one quote from Einstein there, and nothing at all referring to
a reference frame fixed to a photon. So it would appear that
you lied.

Those are teachings from Albert Einstein, you cannot simply close your
eyes.

You said that there would be Einstein's words there, because
that's what you were asked to provide. There is nothing on
that page (here's the link again, because you snipped it):

Look at the last example of the following page:
http://www.einsteinathome.org/gwaves...t/special.html

There is no mention of the thought experiement regarding a
frame of reference tied to a photon as you suggeted there
was. You lied. You are a liar.


In what frame of reference? Also, sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) is a dimensionless
number, so it cannot be a length.

This is exactly what is written in Albert Einstein's book, page 40.

Which book? Which edition? That expression represents a
scaling factor, not a length.


[...]

Speed with respect to what? Are you proposing an absolute rest
frame? How can it be distinguished?

I am always referring to the Earth's reference frame.

So are we to conclude that in your theory the Earth is stationary
at the center of the Universe?


Of course he should. The rope length set by the cannoneer is not
long enough to span the distance between the balls in the moving
frame. If you understood Relativity you would understand why this
is. Think about time dilation and when an observer sitting on the
first cannon ball would observe the second ball being fired. It's
not the same time interval as for the stationary observer.

What if I replace the rope with a metal rod then? The rod will stretch
of contract? This doesn't make any sense.

Are the balls connected by the metal rod before they are
fired? If so, both balls must be fired at once, right?,
as they are rigidly conected. And the cannoneer has no
choice in the matter of setting a separate firing time for
each. The stationary observer will see the ensemble contract
in the direction of motion.


The Michelson-Morley experiment "proved" the absence of aether to some
but what it really did is proved "aether" is subject to a spinning frame
of reference.

No, because then there would be observable abberation of starlight
as it entered the atmosphere from different directions and ran into
the entrained aether. This argument was put forth and dismissed over
100 years ago by empirical observation. Are you that far behind in
your
reading?

You're dismissing the Sun's gravitational field which adds and plays an
important role in your deviation measurements.

No, I am not. It is a contradiction for you to claim that
aether entrainment both occurs and doesn't occur. If the Sun's
field cancels the effect, then it cannot be responsible for
MM's result. You're just trying to obfuscate things again.


Hipparcos satellite measured stellar positions with high accuracy
and saw no evidence of entrained aether. It did, however, measure
gravitational deflection of starlight to spec with Relativity for stars
at
over 90 degrees separation from the Sun.

In other words, you haven't even a basic knowledge of what body of
experimental evidence already exists!

I have proved SR is wrong and consequently needs to be reengineered.

No, you have not. You have only proved that you do not
understand SR.

GR's measurements are subjective and also need to be replaced. The
spacetime "curvature" really is a mapping of observations into equations
and not the other way around.

Word salad. GR makes testable predictions. Those predictions
have been tested. So far GR's predictions have proven to be
correct, and to very high precision.


I think a 3D graphical representation is the only way to prove my point.

Hey, if you can't handle the math, paint a picture.

Greg Neill wrote:

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Greg Neill wrote:

Contradicted by empirical measurement of muon half life.

What are the measurements and what is the relative error of the tools?


Do your own legwork. Google is your friend.
The point is that your theory is empirically wrong and
no amount of waffling on your part is going to save it.


Relative gravitational time dilation:
t_f = r_2^2 / r_1^2 * t_o

Utter nonesense, as there's no term for mass in that equation.
What do the radii refer to?

The radius of the observed object versus the radius of the observer.
This is a representation involving 1 planet only and the need for a mass
not required.


The radius of the observer? You mean that the observer's
waist size determines the amount of time dilation in your
theory? Amazing. Let's assume you meant the distance from
the center of mass of the gravitating object (planet, say).

So, according to you, the time dilation factor depends only
on the radial distances from the planet center. Thus, a
body of any mass or size would exhibit the same time dilation
given the distances r_1 and r_2, with r_1 being the radial
distance of the observer and r_2 the radial distance of the
object.

The Moon averages about 384400km from the Earth, or about
60 Earth radii. According to your theory then, time should
be moving faster at the distance of the Moon by a factor of
60^2, or 3600. How did the Apollo atronauts carry enough
food to make the trip? A two week journey translates into
about 138 years.

A geostationary orbit at an altitude of 35786km has an orbital
radius of about 6.6 Earth radii. So according to your theory,
they should experience a time dilation of about 44 times
faster than things down here on Earth.

Notice what it does for the gps time correction. Phil predicts
a factor of about 4 for the time dilation. That means he is
off by a factor of a billion.

Pure gobbledegook. You have not defined the values or significance
of any of the paramers.

This is a great representation and can be used for multiple scales. The
definition of the variables can be explained by Doug.


Why do you delete all the context of replies, removing your
equations and statements that prompted the comments? Are
you trying to obfuscate things?

Here's your equation again:

(i^2*j^2*(n^2*x^3-j*n^2*x^2-i*n^2*x^2+i*j*n^2*x-2*k^2*m^2*x+j*k^2*m^2+i*k^2*
m^2)) / ((i^2*j^2*n^2+j^2*k^2*m^2+i^2*k^2*m^2)v(x-i)*(x-j))

What are i,j,k,m,n, and just to be certain, x and v? What's the
frame of reference? What are the units?

Doug will not be able to provide the definitions of the variables
because you haven't posted them. Or, are you claiming that Doug
is a mind reader?


Not one quote from Einstein there, and nothing at all referring to
a reference frame fixed to a photon. So it would appear that
you lied.

Those are teachings from Albert Einstein, you cannot simply close your

eyes.

You said that there would be Einstein's words there, because
that's what you were asked to provide. There is nothing on
that page (here's the link again, because you snipped it):


Look at the last example of the following page:
http://www.einsteinathome.org/gwaves...t/special.html


There is no mention of the thought experiement regarding a
frame of reference tied to a photon as you suggeted there
was. You lied. You are a liar.


In what frame of reference? Also, sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) is a dimensionless
number, so it cannot be a length.

This is exactly what is written in Albert Einstein's book, page 40.


Which book? Which edition? That expression represents a
scaling factor, not a length.


[...]


Speed with respect to what? Are you proposing an absolute rest
frame? How can it be distinguished?

I am always referring to the Earth's reference frame.


So are we to conclude that in your theory the Earth is stationary
at the center of the Universe?


Of course he should. The rope length set by the cannoneer is not
long enough to span the distance between the balls in the moving
frame. If you understood Relativity you would understand why this
is. Think about time dilation and when an observer sitting on the
first cannon ball would observe the second ball being fired. It's
not the same time interval as for the stationary observer.

What if I replace the rope with a metal rod then? The rod will stretch
of contract? This doesn't make any sense.


Are the balls connected by the metal rod before they are
fired? If so, both balls must be fired at once, right?,
as they are rigidly conected. And the cannoneer has no
choice in the matter of setting a separate firing time for
each. The stationary observer will see the ensemble contract
in the direction of motion.


The Michelson-Morley experiment "proved" the absence of aether to some
but what it really did is proved "aether" is subject to a spinning frame
of reference.

No, because then there would be observable abberation of starlight
as it entered the atmosphere from different directions and ran into
the entrained aether. This argument was put forth and dismissed over
100 years ago by empirical observation. Are you that far behind in

your

reading?

You're dismissing the Sun's gravitational field which adds and plays an
important role in your deviation measurements.


No, I am not. It is a contradiction for you to claim that
aether entrainment both occurs and doesn't occur. If the Sun's
field cancels the effect, then it cannot be responsible for
MM's result. You're just trying to obfuscate things again.


Hipparcos satellite measured stellar positions with high accuracy
and saw no evidence of entrained aether. It did, however, measure
gravitational deflection of starlight to spec with Relativity for stars

at

over 90 degrees separation from the Sun.

In other words, you haven't even a basic knowledge of what body of
experimental evidence already exists!

I have proved SR is wrong and consequently needs to be reengineered.


No, you have not. You have only proved that you do not
understand SR.


GR's measurements are subjective and also need to be replaced. The
spacetime "curvature" really is a mapping of observations into equations
and not the other way around.


Word salad. GR makes testable predictions. Those predictions
have been tested. So far GR's predictions have proven to be
correct, and to very high precision.


I think a 3D graphical representation is the only way to prove my point.


Hey, if you can't handle the math, paint a picture.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Peter Webb wrote:


Excellent.

Experimental proof that FR is wrong.

Thousands of experiments every day in particle accelerators show that
the decay half life of particles (referenced from the frame of the
accelerator) follows the rules of SR. Your equation produces about
double the half life for object close to the speed of light.

So it could not possibly be correct.

Nice theory; pity it is directly contradicted by experiment. Welcome
to the world of physics.


Ok well, like I said before maybe SR's "1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)" is more
precise than FR's "1/(1 - v^2/c^2)" but this is pure lucky approximation
because it's roots doesn't make any sense.

If SR is more precise than FR, that means FR is WRONG. Do you understand
the meaning of the word? You not understanding SR and GR does not make
them wrong. You not liking SR and GR does not make them wrong.

Since I gave once again the
equations, now's your turn giving away all of these hidden experimental
measurements. I want to know also the relative error.

Being a CS guy, you may not know about computers and the internet.
Hint: ask your friends about google. Or go to a library.

FR's main theory is based on gravitational time dilation and the simple
time dilation is a replacement and is much closer to quantum mechanics
than astrophysics as a matter of fact.

FR is based on your delusions. You are aware that SR has time dilation
without gravity?

So even if FR's time dilation
isn't precise enough it is independent from FR's relative gravitational
time dilation.

"Not precise enough" means it is wrong.

FR's muons relative error measurement doesn't change a thing about GR's
singularities, natural wormholes, length contraction, infinite masses,
time travel in the past, velocity cap of 3e8 m/s and consequently an
infinite amount of universes and dark matter blunders.

You are claiming that since you do not like what you think relativity
says, that it must be wrong. Science does not work that way.

By the way, your gps time prediction is wrong by a factor of a billion.
Another stake in the heart of your "theory".

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Greg Neill wrote:


Contradicted by empirical measurement of muon half life.


What are the measurements and what is the relative error of the tools?

Relative gravitational time dilation:
t_f = r_2^2 / r_1^2 * t_o


Utter nonesense, as there's no term for mass in that equation.
What do the radii refer to?


The radius of the observed object versus the radius of the observer.
This is a representation involving 1 planet only and the need for a mass
not required.

And you notice that you calculate a time dilation for the gps that is
wrong by a factor of a billion. FR is dead.

Pure gobbledegook. You have not defined the values or significance
of any of the paramers.


This is a great representation and can be used for multiple scales. The
definition of the variables can be explained by Doug.

Yes, they are random characters that phil thought looked nice. Since
phil has no theory, he is free to put in whatever he thinks looks
impressive to someone who knows no physics.

Not one quote from Einstein there, and nothing at all referring to
a reference frame fixed to a photon. So it would appear that
you lied.


Those are teachings from Albert Einstein, you cannot simply close your
eyes.

No, you are lying.

In what frame of reference? Also, sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) is a dimensionless
number, so it cannot be a length.


This is exactly what is written in Albert Einstein's book, page 40.

I thought you claimed to know math. Apparently not.

[...]

Speed with respect to what? Are you proposing an absolute rest
frame? How can it be distinguished?


I am always referring to the Earth's reference frame.

There is more than one reference frame. If you actually read
something about physics, you would learn that.

Of course he should. The rope length set by the cannoneer is not
long enough to span the distance between the balls in the moving
frame. If you understood Relativity you would understand why this
is. Think about time dilation and when an observer sitting on the
first cannon ball would observe the second ball being fired. It's
not the same time interval as for the stationary observer.


What if I replace the rope with a metal rod then? The rod will stretch
of contract? This doesn't make any sense.

You keep demonstrating your utter lack of any knowledge of relativity.
You cannot win any argument from a position of total ignorance.

No, because then there would be observable abberation of starlight
as it entered the atmosphere from different directions and ran into
the entrained aether. This argument was put forth and dismissed over
100 years ago by empirical observation. Are you that far behind in
your
reading?


You're dismissing the Sun's gravitational field which adds and plays an
important role in your deviation measurements.

Grasping at straws here, I see.

Hipparcos satellite measured stellar positions with high accuracy
and saw no evidence of entrained aether. It did, however, measure
gravitational deflection of starlight to spec with Relativity for
stars at
over 90 degrees separation from the Sun.

In other words, you haven't even a basic knowledge of what body of
experimental evidence already exists!


I have proved SR is wrong and consequently needs to be reengineered.

No, you have demonstrated that FR is wrong by a factor of a billion
at times. You have said nothing about SR and thus you have not even
tried to attack it.

GR's measurements are subjective and also need to be replaced.

No, the measurements are objective. You do not get to replace the
experiments just because you do not like the results.

The
spacetime "curvature" really is a mapping of observations into equations
and not the other way around.

I think a 3D graphical representation is the only way to prove my point.

Oh good, first a spreadsheet and now a graphical program. You continue
to seek ways to look stupid..

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Peter Webb wrote:


The Relativistic Ion Collider accelerates particles to 99.995% of the
speed of light (http://www.bnl.gov/RHIC/fascinating.htm) in which case
1- v^2/c^2 = about 10^-4.

Special Relativity produces a time dilation of 1/sqrt(10^-4) = 100, FR
produces a time dilation of 1/(10^-4) or 10,000, some 100 times larger
than predicted by SR.

I don't know exactly what experimental error they have in measuring
particle half-lives at the RIC, but I bet its less than a factor of
100 out, which is what FR is.


Well we need considering the relative error of both the tools used
measuring the speed of the particle, the exact moment it starts decaying
and its absolute death.

You have no clue about the measurements so you are just hoping. That
does not work in science. You sound like a little child trying to
make excuses for not doing his homework.

Even if FR's time dilation precision was wrong,

If FR's time dilation is wrong, FR is wrong. How can you not understand
that?

SR is still wrong.

No, you not liking SR does not change the century of experimental
verification of it.

But
FR's gravitational time dilation is independent from all this regardless.

Yes, and FR is wrong by a factor of a billion in the case of gps.
So, it is dead and useless there as well.

Greg Neill wrote:

[...]

The Moon averages about 384400km from the Earth, or about
60 Earth radii. According to your theory then, time should
be moving faster at the distance of the Moon by a factor of
60^2, or 3600. How did the Apollo atronauts carry enough
food to make the trip? A two week journey translates into
about 138 years.

When multiple bodies are involved, measurements will be very different.
The "curved" spacetime GR suggests is identical from FR's
gravitational fields juxtaposition.

A geostationary orbit at an altitude of 35786km has an orbital
radius of about 6.6 Earth radii. So according to your theory,
they should experience a time dilation of about 44 times
faster than things down here on Earth.

Like I said before, FR needs considering the Sun's effects also and the
factor will be much less than 44 times.

[...]

(i^2*j^2*(n^2*x^3-j*n^2*x^2-i*n^2*x^2+i*j*n^2*x-2*k^2*m^2*x+j*k^2*m^2+i*k^2*
m^2)) / ((i^2*j^2*n^2+j^2*k^2*m^2+i^2*k^2*m^2)v(x-i)*(x-j))

What are i,j,k,m,n, and just to be certain, x and v? What's the
frame of reference? What are the units?

Doug will not be able to provide the definitions of the variables
because you haven't posted them. Or, are you claiming that Doug
is a mind reader?

Science is plagiarized by definition so why should I post them here? x
is the finish line in meters and v is the speed of the object (c in case
of light) in meters per second.

[...]

There is no mention of the thought experiement regarding a
frame of reference tied to a photon as you suggeted there
was. You lied. You are a liar.

Einstein's rules are Einstein's own words. Let's not silently dismiss
what's written on the web page.

Which book? Which edition? That expression represents a
scaling factor, not a length.

"Relativity, The Special and General Theory" - fifteenth edition. It
represents indeed a scaling factor.

So are we to conclude that in your theory the Earth is stationary
at the center of the Universe?

Exactly.

Are the balls connected by the metal rod before they are
fired? If so, both balls must be fired at once, right?,
as they are rigidly conected. And the cannoneer has no
choice in the matter of setting a separate firing time for
each. The stationary observer will see the ensemble contract
in the direction of motion.

Ok. Consider the cannons being exactly 1 meter away from each other and
both cannonballs are fired at the exact same time. This cannot be clearer.

No, I am not. It is a contradiction for you to claim that
aether entrainment both occurs and doesn't occur. If the Sun's
field cancels the effect, then it cannot be responsible for
MM's result. You're just trying to obfuscate things again.

Your statement is vague also.

[...]

Word salad. GR makes testable predictions. Those predictions
have been tested. So far GR's predictions have proven to be
correct, and to very high precision.

GR is a mapping of local observations and adjusted accordingly. FR is a
bottom - up theory.

[...]

On Mar 30, 8:43*am, Phil Bouchard wrote:
[snip all]

What the hell are you doing, Phil?

Why are you posting here?

Phil Bouchard wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

[...]

The Moon averages about 384400km from the Earth, or about
60 Earth radii. According to your theory then, time should
be moving faster at the distance of the Moon by a factor of
60^2, or 3600. How did the Apollo atronauts carry enough
food to make the trip? A two week journey translates into
about 138 years.

When multiple bodies are involved, measurements will be very different.
The "curved" spacetime GR suggests is identical from FR's
gravitational fields juxtaposition.

Sorry, there's no way to get your (r2/r1)^2 rule
to fit what GR says, since a linear superposition
of such terms can never match a nonlinear curve.

Furthermore, doesn't the sheer magnitude of the silly
result (3600) make you stop and think? I mean, there's
no reason why you have to go to the Moon to the at the
distance of the Moon's orbit. Plenty of probes have
gone well past that distance, and yet we dont' find their
data rates or transmission frequencies shifted by factors
of thousands.

If your FR nonsense were true, Kepler's laws wouldn't
work. Take, for example the law that relates the square
of the orbital period to the cube of the orbital radius:

T^2 = k*R^3 where k is a constant of proportionality.

Here's some data for some of Jupiter's satellites:

Orbit Radius Orbit Period
(Jovian Radii) (Days) T^3 / R^3

Io (JI) 5.905 1.769138 0.015
Europa (JII) 9.397 3.55181 0.015
Ganymede (JIII) 14.99 7.154553 0.015
Callisto (JIV) 26.37 16.689018 0.015
Metis (JXVI) 1.792 20.29478 0.015
Adrastea (JXV) 1.8065 0.29826 0.015
Amalthea (JV) 2.539 0.498179 0.015
Thebe (JXIV) 3.108 0.6745 0.015
Leda (JXIII) 155.38 238.72 0.015
Himalia (JVI) 160.79 250.5662 0.015
Lysithea (JX) 164.15 259.22 0.015
Elara (JVII) 164.39 259.6528 0.015
Ananke (JXII) 297 631 0.015
Carme (JXI) 317 692 0.015
Pasiphae (JVIII) 329 735 0.015


Note the constant value for the ratio of T^2/R^3.

These radii and periods are measured values, and they fit
the mathematics beautifully. Throw in your time dilation
figures for orbital radii between 1 and 330 Jupiter Radii
and you'll muck up Newtonian orbits, never mind ones
corrected for Relativistic effects.


A geostationary orbit at an altitude of 35786km has an orbital
radius of about 6.6 Earth radii. So according to your theory,
they should experience a time dilation of about 44 times
faster than things down here on Earth.

Like I said before, FR needs considering the Sun's effects also and the
factor will be much less than 44 times.

That's crap and you know it. We're at a near constant distance
from the Sun of 1 AU. The Sun's contribution from your theory
would be nearly a constant. In fact, if anything it proves that
your theory is crap because the time dilation for satellites
in orbit would vary somewhat from dayside to nightside as the
distance to the Sun varied.

Further, our orbit is at about 215 Sun radii. So things should
be happenning on the Sun about 215^2 or 46,000 times slower.
Strange that we don't see that kind of frequency shift in the
light we receive, no?

The Voyager spacecraft is currently out at about 108 AU from the
Sun. We're at 1 AU from the Sun, so the FR time dilation
contributon would be for us, what, (108/1)^2 = 11,664. I think
we'd have noticed a frequency shift of nearly 12,000 times in
the Voyager transmitters.


[...]


(i^2*j^2*(n^2*x^3-j*n^2*x^2-i*n^2*x^2+i*j*n^2*x-2*k^2*m^2*x+j*k^2*m^2+i*k^2*
m^2)) / ((i^2*j^2*n^2+j^2*k^2*m^2+i^2*k^2*m^2)v(x-i)*(x-j))

What are i,j,k,m,n, and just to be certain, x and v? What's the
frame of reference? What are the units?

Doug will not be able to provide the definitions of the variables
because you haven't posted them. Or, are you claiming that Doug
is a mind reader?

Science is plagiarized by definition so why should I post them here? x
is the finish line in meters and v is the speed of the object (c in case
of light) in meters per second.

Excuses excuses. We shall take it then that you are full of crap
and don't have any values for your imaginary formula. You're a
fraud peddling nonsense to gullible takers. A low life, a thief,
a cad, and a bounder.


[...]

There is no mention of the thought experiement regarding a
frame of reference tied to a photon as you suggeted there
was. You lied. You are a liar.

Einstein's rules are Einstein's own words. Let's not silently dismiss
what's written on the web page.

There's nothing on that web page that corresponds to what your
stated thought experiment is. The material there may be
impeccable or nonsense, but it doesn't matter if it is
irrelevant. You're just attempting to distract the conversation
away from your obvious errors. It won't work.


Which book? Which edition? That expression represents a
scaling factor, not a length.

"Relativity, The Special and General Theory" - fifteenth edition. It
represents indeed a scaling factor.

Then why didn't you say so? You must be precise or you will
always be making such blunders.


So are we to conclude that in your theory the Earth is stationary
at the center of the Universe?

Exactly.

Oy vey.

So the Sun orbits the Earth then? The entire Universe does a
pinwheel around the Earth every day?

Explain then the observed anisotropy of the CMBR which indicates
that we have a motion against the local background radiation.


Are the balls connected by the metal rod before they are
fired? If so, both balls must be fired at once, right?,
as they are rigidly conected. And the cannoneer has no
choice in the matter of setting a separate firing time for
each. The stationary observer will see the ensemble contract
in the direction of motion.

Ok. Consider the cannons being exactly 1 meter away from each other and
both cannonballs are fired at the exact same time. This cannot be
clearer.

Then what's the problem? If they are 1 meter appart when stationary,
then when they are launched they will be observed to be closer
together and the connecting rod will be shorter by the requisite
amount.


No, I am not. It is a contradiction for you to claim that
aether entrainment both occurs and doesn't occur. If the Sun's
field cancels the effect, then it cannot be responsible for
MM's result. You're just trying to obfuscate things again.

Your statement is vague also.

Because you don't (or can't) understand it?


[...]

Word salad. GR makes testable predictions. Those predictions
have been tested. So far GR's predictions have proven to be
correct, and to very high precision.

GR is a mapping of local observations and adjusted accordingly. FR is a
bottom - up theory.

No. GR is most certainly _*NOT*_ curve fitting. It is a
theory developed from first principles that generates
predictable results. There is really only the one adjustable
parameter, namely the cosmological constant, which has only
very recently become subject to scrutiny due to very recent
data. It doesn't bear on any of GR's other predictions and
tests. But you'd know that if you understood the math.