Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

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.

This is a stupid statement and not based on any science.

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.

Gps. Been there, doing that.

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.

Gps. Been there, doing that.

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.

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

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.

More mindless babble from phil. Phil is looking for excuses, not science.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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.

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


If the result is wrong I can still tune up the fudge factor.

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

This will
not affect the GPS predictions either.

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

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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.

This is irrelevant. And you have no idea what it means.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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.

Which you are too ignorant of science to understand that means
you are completely wrong.

doug wrote:

So you made excuses to your teachers when you screwed up in class
but this is the real world.

In the real world what matters is the answer, not the fonts used.

If you ask me for a PowerPoint presentation then no problem either.

doug wrote:

There is a difference between geostationary altitudes and lower ones.

Which one do you think gps is? And why is there a difference?

As shown by:
http://i420.photobucket.com/albums/p...peb8/gtd-2.png

We see the satellites are subject to the Sun's kg^2/m^2 factor. Take
them at lower altitudes and it will be subject to the Earth's factor.

When you are cornered with facts, you wander of desperately looking
for something to say even if it is meaningless. A century of looking
for something wrong in relativity has failed.

Well the century of experiments were made by astrophysicists and it
comes with no doubt you will dismiss and hide any potential threat.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

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.

And you don't see a problem with that?

Phil Bouchard wrote:
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.

Give it up, Phil. Asking people to agree with your incorrect
interpretations is not going to work, no matter how you try
to put words into other's mouths.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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.

Well, in science, the values matter too.

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?

What does that have to do with anything?

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?

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.

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

Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:

There is a difference between geostationary altitudes and lower ones.

Which one do you think gps is? And why is there a difference?

As shown by:
http://i420.photobucket.com/albums/p...peb8/gtd-2.png

We see the satellites are subject to the Sun's kg^2/m^2 factor. Take
them at lower altitudes and it will be subject to the Earth's factor.

Your illucid graphs show nothing intelligible. There's no
indication of what they actually represent, how the data was
obtained or calculated, what the actual scales are on the
axes and what they represent. Phil, do you submit reports
at work in crayon with paste-on smiley faces? How do your
betters receieve them?