Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

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

You asked a question as to what would be observed if two cannons fired
cannonballs connected by a rope and at near the speed of light at almost
the same time.

I answered your question.

I thought that this was a joke actually... and a funny one. So according
to
you the rope really breaks apart? Hahaha...

Do you understand now what would be observed? Did you have any doubts its
true, and if so, what do you think will happen differently in the thought
experiment you have described?

What if you have 2 sponge balls tied with a rope and traveling at c -
epsilon?

Answer: There won't be any length contraction.

Phil *still* doesn't understand how to apply simple SR,
and why his thought experiment setup is flawed.

"doug" wrote in message
et...

Answer: phil has no idea about frames of reference or what relativity
says. The fact that he has tossed out this nonsense is proof of his
ignorance. Phil, at least read something other than a comic book
on relativity and you will not look so stupid. You cannot attack
something you do not understand. Not liking relativity is far
different that understanding it.

Answer: Doug tries to look cool in front of his student but actually had the
worse grade out of this exam and has 0 physics to discuss. All you can
evoke are paradoxes, a 100 years of experiements and that Einstein is a
miracle and God must follow his dictature.

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
m...

Phil *still* doesn't understand how to apply simple SR,
and why his thought experiment setup is flawed.

Sarcacism is not a scientific argument. A paradox inside a theory itself
disproves it.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
u...

[...]


I see. You haven't got a set of equations showing time dilation alone is
sufficient to explain relativitistic effects. Can't say I am surprised;
apart from the fact that you are a crank, a set of transformations that
included time dilation but not length contraction could not conserve
mass/energy or momentum, and these are directly observed relativistic
effects.


Length contraction is actually needed to balance Einstein and his mass
increase idiocy. Take the mass increase away and you don't have the length
contraction oddity.

As we have been saying, you have no equations only emotions and hopes.
Those are not science.

Hint: Take ALL equations written by "Albert Einstein" out of your solvings
and things will start making sense.

Again, here you are putting your hatred and jealousy forth and trying to
call it science.


[...]

"doug" wrote in message
et...

Phil has brought up no physics. We are still waiting for something
other than unsupported assertions. Low grades from fools like Phil
are a complement.

Being called a crank by a troll make me a normal rational person.

[...]

A century of experiments is very solid evidence. It is pretty
stupid on your part to think that your hatred and jealousy
are more important than that.

The century of experiments is leading to a dead end as it is right now. You
guys should agree Einstein was incompetent and move on to FTL research
before it's too late.

As a matter of fact it is too late because you and your minions failed
defending it. CS, QM, maths and engineering will now take over and silently
push you aside.

[...]

Phil Bouchard wrote:

"Peter Webb" wrote in message
...

You asked a question as to what would be observed if two cannons fired
cannonballs connected by a rope and at near the speed of light at almost
the same time.

I answered your question.


I thought that this was a joke actually... and a funny one. So according to
you the rope really breaks apart? Hahaha...


Do you understand now what would be observed? Did you have any doubts its
true, and if so, what do you think will happen differently in the thought
experiment you have described?


What if you have 2 sponge balls tied with a rope and traveling at c -
epsilon?

Answer: There won't be any length contraction.

Answer: phil has no idea about frames of reference or what relativity
says. The fact that he has tossed out this nonsense is proof of his
ignorance. Phil, at least read something other than a comic book
on relativity and you will not look so stupid. You cannot attack
something you do not understand. Not liking relativity is far
different that understanding it.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

"doug" wrote in message
et...

Answer: phil has no idea about frames of reference or what relativity
says. The fact that he has tossed out this nonsense is proof of his
ignorance. Phil, at least read something other than a comic book
on relativity and you will not look so stupid. You cannot attack
something you do not understand. Not liking relativity is far
different that understanding it.


Answer: Doug tries to look cool in front of his student but actually had the
worse grade out of this exam and has 0 physics to discuss.

Phil has brought up no physics. We are still waiting for something
other than unsupported assertions. Low grades from fools like Phil
are a complement.

All you can
evoke are paradoxes,

There are no paradoxes in relativity, your ignorant claims notwithstanding.

a 100 years of experiements

A century of experiments is very solid evidence. It is pretty
stupid on your part to think that your hatred and jealousy
are more important than that.

and that Einstein is a
miracle and God must follow his dictature.

My goodness, your jealousy is getting worse.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
m...

Phil *still* doesn't understand how to apply simple SR,
and why his thought experiment setup is flawed.


Sarcacism is not a scientific argument. A paradox inside a theory itself
disproves it.

Since there are no paradoxes in relativity, your comment means nothing
in your attempt to attack relativity.

"doug" wrote in message
et...

[...]

CS will not take over physics. CS is not vaguely related to physics.
With you as an example, we scientists can sleep very comfortably.

You can't speak for all scientists. Good luck anyways.

[...]

You claim you have some proof. Are you afraid to show it?
Or, are you lying?

I have shown all of my equations but you can't understand much of it. Once
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))

Will give you the true time a light beam takes covering distance x.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

"doug" wrote in message
et...

Phil has brought up no physics. We are still waiting for something
other than unsupported assertions. Low grades from fools like Phil
are a complement.


Being called a crank by a troll make me a normal rational person.

[...]


A century of experiments is very solid evidence. It is pretty
stupid on your part to think that your hatred and jealousy
are more important than that.


The century of experiments is leading to a dead end as it is right now.

No, a bad prediction of relativity would make a problem. Your dislike
of relativity is not a problem for it.

You
guys should agree Einstein was incompetent and move on to FTL research
before it's too late.

There is no reason for us to change our views. You have shown nothing.
You will show nothing. You have no theory.

As a matter of fact it is too late because you and your minions failed
defending it. CS, QM, maths and engineering will now take over and silently
push you aside.

CS will not take over physics. CS is not vaguely related to physics.
With you as an example, we scientists can sleep very comfortably.
QM is doing just fine and has been for a century. Math is doing just
fine. Engineering is not physics. It is tremendously useful but it
is a derivative built on the basis of physics.

You claim you have some proof. Are you afraid to show it?
Or, are you lying?


[...]