Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

doug wrote:

Thanks for the humor this morning. I will be sure to weigh myself when
the milky way is in the right position.

Doug cannot tell the difference between kg and kg^2/m^2.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
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.

And there we have it, the pot is well and truly cracked.

Here we are on a rotating planet, circling a star that's
moving in an orbit in a typical galaxy that is in turn
moving in a local group of galaxies that's moving with
respect to everything else in the universe, and you claim
that the Earth is the center of all? How quaint. How
provincial.


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.

As I said, no unexpected effects.


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.

There are plenty of spectrum analyzers working in space onboard
space telescopes of various descriptions. No such effects are seen.
You're grasping at yet more straws, and in a very ignorant way.


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.

You're ignoring all the effects, like aberration and refraction,
that must be seen if what you said was true.

Greg Neill wrote:

In a way, yes.

Gravitational potential is somewhat analogous to air pressure
in that we're often more concerned with the effects of pressure
differentials than ambient pressure in the environment. You
don't care, for example, that the absolute air pressure around
you is about 14 psi as compared to zero in the vacuum of space
when you inflate your car tires to 32 psi. The 32 psi is
referenced to the ambient pressure in the environment, not to a
vacuum.

Ambient air pressure varies comparitively little over the range
that you take your tires, even up and over mountains, so that the
tires continue to function within specifications without having to
continually stop and adjust their inflation for every hill and
dale.

If the ambient potential, or air pressure, in the environment is
essentially uniform, it does not interfere with the comparison
of the potentials (inflation pressure) of two tires.

What you're claiming in FR is the equivalent of saying that
the essentially uniform ambient air pressure makes a difference
when you are comparing the pressures in the tires.

Yes.

doug wrote:

So putting a meaningless scale on plots is ok in your world?
There are lots of cs guys like that.

All that matters is we know the curves are diverging from each other at
higher altitudes than the ones used for geostationary satellites.

So, in other words, since you have no theory, you are free to
make up whatever you want. That is not science.

Was the standard atmosphere pressure calculated, measured or measured
then calculated?

That is right, you have been wrong on this all this time.

I get a precision in nanoseconds, the same as GR. You forgot already?

doug wrote:

[...]

Gps. Been there, doing that.

There is a difference between geostationary altitudes and lower ones.

No. The speed of light has been shown to be constant a long time ago.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
experiment can prove me wrong." -- Albert Einstein

[...]

doug wrote:

So putting a meaningless scale on plots is ok in your world?
There are lots of cs guys like that.

"If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor." --
Albert Einstein

[...]

doug wrote:

Your Alzheimer's is showing. Your text is wrong. You are misrepresenting
what relativity says.

"A paradox isn't a paradox." -- Doug

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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

Your Alzheimer's is showing. Your text is wrong. You are misrepresenting
what relativity says.


[...]

Greg Neill wrote:

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.

No I just want to confirm your answer. According to you and Doug the
images are perfectly valid and tying the cannonballs together makes a
difference on the length contraction observed by a clerk standing on the
ground.

doug wrote:

Well, in science, the values matter too.

How you feel is not science.

What does that have to do with anything?

Making the answer as easy as possible for you to understand.

No, you have no theory. You have a numerology which lets you get a value
right for one point in the universe. You are wrong on the surface of the
earth, you are wrong in the center of the earth, you are wrong in free
space and you are predicting the freq shift is different depending on
which side of the earth the gps satellites are on. That is wrong as
well. So far you have hit nothing right.

- The center of the Earth requires more complex calculations
- The surface of the Earth is the exact same as that of GR
- The gravitational time dilation factor is different from the side of
the Earth the satellite is at.

The free space is where we'll get divergent results in terms of
gravitational time dilation, but still in a scale of nanoseconds.

And you still have no clue what the comment about nsecs was about.
Repeating those statements you made just demonstrates stupidity.

Doug is afraid articulating since his -33% grade.