Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

On Apr 8, 12:32 pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Dono wrote:

You are to GR what Ken ****o is to SR

SR is as wrong as GR:

This is precisely what makes you like Ken ****o.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


It is pretty funny to see phil exhibit his ignorance. Phil does
not know that the solution inside a sphere is a mathematical
consequence of Newtonian physics. But then, Phil does not know
any math either.


Doug thinks mastering the Lorentz transformations makes him a
mathematician. I'll do that later.

You had better learn some algebra first. From your demonstrations
it is clear you know very little math. No physics either.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Greg Neill wrote:


So, you've done almost no investigation of the subject.
If you had, you'd be aware of the various tests of GR.


The length contraction paradox is good enough.

You have never shown one. No one else has either.

That you need a fudge factor at all, versus GR's needing none
at all while matching reality to the limit of our ability to
measure, and having a simpler mathematical form than FR, makes FR
an impractical kluge.


The reality is a little bit more complicated than you think. But in the
end FR is much simpler than GR.

Yes, FR is always wrong.


[...]

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Dono wrote:


You are to GR what Ken ****o is to SR


SR is as wrong as GR:

"1. First postulate (principle of relativity)

The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are
not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or
the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion."

Comment #1:

If you are traveling at c - epsilon, the perception of the moving
observer of the velocity of a light ray will be different from the
direction of the velocity vector.

This can be proven with the high precision frequency meter inside a
satellite in orbit.

I do not think you have any idea what you are saying. In any case,
you have brought up no problems with the postulate.


"2. Second postulate (invariance of c)

As measured in an inertial frame of reference, light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent
of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Comment #2:

The second postulate looks like a simple consequence of the first. As
mentioned in comment #1 since the moving observer's perception of a
light ray will be different according to the direction of the light ray,
the photon cannot have the same velocity in all directions.

When I say the moving observer will perceive the emitted light ray
velocity differently according to its direction, I mean that:

- the light ray will be seen at the same speed if it has the same
velocity vector as the observer
- the light ray will be seen traveling at an infinite velocity if the
direction of the velocity vector is the opposite of the observer.

Phil, your ignorance is not a scientific argument. Read the postulate
again and then read something other than your comic book.

Greg Neill wrote:

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Dono wrote:

You are to GR what Ken ****o is to SR

SR is as wrong as GR:

"1. First postulate (principle of relativity)

The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are
not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or
the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion."

Comment #1:

If you are traveling at c - epsilon, the perception of the moving
observer of the velocity of a light ray will be different from the
direction of the velocity vector.


No, it isn't. We're travelling at very close to c with
respect to many things in the universe, yet we see no
such effect when we measure light coming from or transmitted
to any direction.


This can be proven with the high precision frequency meter inside a
satellite in orbit.


No, it can't. Light itself is a sensitive frequency meter
in that given physical processes (such as atomic transitions)
involve very sharply tuned frequencies of light. Spectrometry
is how we study the physical processes of things in space.
No unexpected effects are seen.



"2. Second postulate (invariance of c)

As measured in an inertial frame of reference, light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent
of the state of motion of the emitting body."

Comment #2:

The second postulate looks like a simple consequence of the first. As
mentioned in comment #1 since the moving observer's perception of a
light ray will be different according to the direction of the light ray,
the photon cannot have the same velocity in all directions.


And yet, it does. So your statement is nothing but a false hope
on your part. Unless, of course, you think you can cite an
experimental result that shows otherwise.


When I say the moving observer will perceive the emitted light ray
velocity differently according to its direction, I mean that:

- the light ray will be seen at the same speed if it has the same
velocity vector as the observer
- the light ray will be seen traveling at an infinite velocity if the
direction of the velocity vector is the opposite of the observer.


Talk is cheap.

We don't see any version of light *ever* moving at any
speed other than c. If you think otherwise, provide a cite
to an experimental result demonstrating it.

Well, phil has shown that "phil relativity" makes no sense but
"phil relativity" has no relation to Einstein relativity.

doug wrote:

You have never shown one. No one else has either.

Then tell me which is wrong in the following preview. Figure 6, 7, 8, 9
or the conclusion?
https://www.createspace.com/pub/comm...7&rewrite=true

[...]

Greg Neill wrote:

There's no paradox, and that's SR rather than GR. Do
you not know the difference?

GR is based on SR. Which of the following is wrong inside the preview:
figure 6, 7, 8, 9 or the conclusion?
https://www.createspace.com/pub/comm...7&rewrite=true

"For every comlex problem there is a solution that is
simple, neat, and wrong". You've certainly demonstrated
this.

"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull
his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you
understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send
signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there
is no cat." -- Albert Einstein

"If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only
have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more
plants, no more animals, no more man." -- Albert Einstein

"With fame I become more and more stupid, which of course is a very
common phenomenon." -- Albert Einstein

"The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

Phil Bouchard wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

There's no paradox, and that's SR rather than GR. Do
you not know the difference?

GR is based on SR.

No, it's not, even if it does produce SR as a consequence.

Which of the following is wrong inside the preview:
figure 6, 7, 8, 9 or the conclusion?

https://www.createspace.com/pub/comm...7&rewrite=true

Been there, done that. It's not worth my time to go back
over it again as, apparently, attempting to get you to
understand and correct your misunderstandings is about as
effective as trying to teach a cinderblock to dance.

Greg Neill wrote:

No, it isn't. We're travelling at very close to c with
respect to many things in the universe, yet we see no
such effect when we measure light coming from or transmitted
to any direction.

Given that the Earth is the center of the universe, we'll never see any
difference on its surface.

This is why the high precision frequency meter inside a satellite will
prove it is flawed. I don't see why astrophysicists should be
interested in such an experiment so this is why we need putting somebody
else in charge.

No, it can't. Light itself is a sensitive frequency meter
in that given physical processes (such as atomic transitions)
involve very sharply tuned frequencies of light. Spectrometry
is how we study the physical processes of things in space.
No unexpected effects are seen.

Gravitational red / blue shifts and the Doppler effects were seen and
measured.

The same will happen with the high precision frequency meter traveling
at high velocities around the Earth. The frequency of the light ray
will be shifted.

And yet, it does. So your statement is nothing but a false hope
on your part. Unless, of course, you think you can cite an
experimental result that shows otherwise.

.... The frequency of the light ray will be shifted and the speed will be
different also.

Talk is cheap.

We don't see any version of light *ever* moving at any
speed other than c. If you think otherwise, provide a cite
to an experimental result demonstrating it.

This is because your century of experiments was made on the surface of
the Earth. The imprecision MM was measuring is actually the effects of
the Sun.

doug wrote:

First, you have never learned how to present results.
Second, your result is wrong.

I pay no attention to the template you're using to present drafts.

If the result is wrong I can still tune up the fudge factor. This will
not affect the GPS predictions either.