Finite Relativism Disproof

doug wrote:

And phil has never looked at a textbook so he is not qualified
to say what they contain.

I see: Parallel Universes on the bookstore's shelves and people are
buying that. Doug thinks it's okay.

doug wrote:

Phil snips and tries to hide from the fact that he has
been shown to be a fool in his ignorance of the inside the
sphere solution. And all other solutions he has tried as
well.

Doug is making science look like kids in a sandbox.

doug wrote:

Numerology is meaningless so FR is meaningless.

Well FR got answers, GR got blunders.

doug wrote:

Science is doing just fine without you. You will never make any
contribution to science but it is good to have you here to laugh
at.

Let's see who backup your claims.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


Phil has not looked at any textbooks so he continues to look like
a fool. The inside the sphere solutions for both shells and
uniform distributions have been known for centuries but they
remain a mystery to phil who continues to give his wrong answer.


Doug's textbooks says the Universe contains wormholes.

And phil has never looked at a textbook so he is not qualified
to say what they contain.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

PD wrote:


If you have a point, you should just get it out and be done with it.


It is out and shared.

And wrong.

I asked for another review but it's harder making
people feel good about it even if FR offers more solutions than problems
and mysteries.

It offers nothing but wrong answers and numerology. It is
a bad joke.

If all you really want to do is make your point and not discuss, then
do it on a blog and not on a discussion group.
If there is something that is confusing ("spaghetti talks"), then have
you considered just ASKING, rather than proposing an alternative and
asking why your answer isn't right?


I do not know the procedures but: do the postulates of FR make sense?

Numerology is not science so, no.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


Numerology does wonders. Your inside the sphere is wrong.


It's a simple mass density division that needs to be corrected.

As well as changing the rest of it. Do you really have no clue
what the inside the sphere solution is?

The
chances are high you haven't noticed the equation applies to photons
without a mass.

So you have no clue at all then.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

doug wrote:

Well FR has wrong answers while GR has correct answers.
Your jealousy and hatred do not change the fact that
no experiment is in contraction with GR while all
are in contradiction with FR. It cannot even do
the GPS correction properly.

The Hubble Sphere proved GR was wrong a long time ago.

doug wrote:

I am laughing at you so that backs up my claim..

That's what I was saying. People do not agree with Doug-the-savior.