Finite Relativism Disproof

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

Comments: "Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof"
ISBN: 978-1441453105

pgs 54-58, Section 3.3 GPS

Did ANYBODY proof this crap before you published it? It is
very unfortunate that you had the opportunity to learn that
your understanding was wrong, right here in this physics
newsgroup!

No, the book was not reviewed but my computer did so it cannot be wrong.

Garbage in, garbage out.

That you don't understand computers is not terrifically surprising.


[snip rest]

doug wrote:

No, quit kidding. Name someone who agrees with you.

Those who do not backup your claims.

doug wrote:

GR will not be dismissed since it is sucessful. You have been
dismissed since you are a fool.

I'm not the one living in mysteries and arts.


"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." -- Albert Einstein

doug wrote:

Oh my, you certainly are looking for a future as a comedian. That
is good since you will never do anything in science.

I do not need your teaching services in calculus.

English is not your native language I see.

I made a copy & paste mistake.

[...]

So your parents left you a messy house. That has nothing to
do with science.

Doug's assumptions are pretty erratic. Do you understand nuclear
physics as least?

[...]

Phil Bouchard wrote:

[...]

Doug's assumptions are pretty erratic. Do you understand nuclear
physics as least?

No!... That's what I thought. So you went to relativity, living a hype
and accusing anybody who dares saying a paradox IS in fact a paradox.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:


Comments: "Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof"
ISBN: 978-1441453105

pgs 54-58, Section 3.3 GPS

Did ANYBODY proof this crap before you published it? It is
very unfortunate that you had the opportunity to learn that
your understanding was wrong, right here in this physics
newsgroup!


No, the book was not reviewed but my computer did so it cannot be wrong.

Oh my, you certainly are looking for a future as a comedian. That
is good since you will never do anything in science.

I don't know where you got equation (45), but it makes no
sense whatsoever


Equation (45) is the gravitational time dilation of a satellite in
function of the gravitational time dilation in function of an observer.

English is not your native language I see.

Your plot, titled, Fig. 35, GR Gravitational Time Dilation
Factor (x10^-1 -1) vs. Altitude (m) has nothing to do with
time dilation as predicted by general relativity.


Yes it does but it is reversed for plotting purposes.

Well, it is still wrong.

I have repeatedly asked you to calculate the time dilation for
a clock in orbit about the Earth at an altitude of 202 km. It
was my thinking that such an exercise would be instructive for
you using GTR.


I did everything else, Sam. I'll get you what you want.

Everything you have tried so far has been wrong.

I have also repeatedly posted the derivation and plot of time
dilation as a function of altitude. You never even looked!
Now your crap is published in "Finite Relativism And Dark Matter
Disproof" for a few more readers to laugh at before they toss
the book into the trash.

This has to be EXTREMELY embarrassing for you, Phil. What in
the hell were you thinking?


Cleaning up the mess created by former generations.

So your parents left you a messy house. That has nothing to
do with science.


The back cover states, "General Relativity solved and predicted
many problems over the last century such as time dilation,
mass / energy equivalence, orbit of Mercury, etc. Finite
Relativism is a refinement of the core mathematics suggested by
its predecessor and helps us solve many dilemmas such as:
singularities, black hole behaviors and natural wormholes. It
goes on to disprove Dark Matter, Special Relativity itself,
exposed FTL and takes us one more step closed to the Unified
Field Theory".

Your book accomplishes nothing, makes no point other than to
demonstrate you have no understanding of either special or
general relativity.

There has yet to be an observation that contradicts a prediction
of special or general relativity. You, Phil, have shown none!


Sam silently dismisses the Hubble Sphere found a long time ago.

Phil noisily dismisses all of science to feed his delusions.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


More of your delusions. GR is doing just fine and will
continue to do so.


Hopefully you will retire before GR is silently dismissed.

GR will not be dismissed since it is sucessful. You have been
dismissed since you are a fool.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


Find someone who disagrees with my assessment of your nonsense (except
you, of course, since you have no clue what any of it means).


Engineers, mathematicians, quantum physicists, computer scientists, and
so on...

No, quit kidding. Name someone who agrees with you.

doug wrote:

So you answer your own message and try to lie and claim I said
something. That is pretty cowardly, even for you.

So the bottom line is you do not understand nuclear physics... and
mathematics for that matter.

There are no paradoxes in relativity. There are, however, fools like
you who do not understand relativity.

It's a good thing GR is not responsible for any life threatening tasks.

doug wrote:

So you have found no one who agrees with you.

The original problem was to find people agreeing with you, and silence
occurred.