Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

Sam Wormley wrote:

Perhaps Phil is ignorant of some other applications besides
satellite clocks. We are not surprised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introdu...a pplications

- Nobody cares about gravitational waves

- Black holes were predicted in the 18th century and has nothing to do
with Einstein

- FR is a much better formula for gravitational lensing

Sam Wormley wrote:

I have no idea! But those number are wrong--That's a fact.

Therefore GR is wrong?

Sam Wormley wrote:

That's right, do you know what that is in terms of the relativistic
effects on satellite clocks?

What about a LEO (Low Earth Orbit) satellite clock at, say 202 km
above the earth's surface?

The gravitational time dilation factor is around:
t_fr = 99.999999997891%
t_gr = 99.999999997863%

Greg Neill wrote:

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?

If he is like the cs types I have worked with, the answer
is yes.

How do your
betters receieve them?

They do not think they have any betters. That is why software is
so bad.

Sam Wormley wrote:

laughing

Oh my, Phil, is you head ever in the sand. Get a library card...
and use it!

When I look at the definition of a paradox, maybe Doug is right after all:

1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd
but in reality expresses a possible truth.
2. a self-contradictory and false proposition.
3. any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently
contradictory nature.
4. an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion.


I should consequently refer to the length contraction as being a
deadlock rather than a paradox.

On Apr 8, 2:15*pm, 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.

That's amazing.

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

This is the same joke you showed earlier.

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.

We know about your guesses but they have nothing to do with physics.

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.

It is good to see your ignorance covers even more areas than knew.
Michelson would be surprised to be called an astrophysicist. Phil
has never looked at the experimental evidence and has no idea
what is there.

On Apr 8, 4:55*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

* laughing

* Oh my, Phil, is you head ever in the sand. Get a library card...
* and use it!

When I look at the definition of a paradox, maybe Doug is right after all:

1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd
but in reality expresses a possible truth.
2. a self-contradictory and false proposition.
3. any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently
contradictory nature.
4. an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion.

I should consequently refer to the length contraction as being a
deadlock rather than a paradox.

"too ****ing stupid" == deadlock

On Apr 8, 2:43*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:

[...]

Gps. Been there, doing that.

There is a difference between geostationary altitudes and lower ones.

The numerology only works for one?

Go away, Phil.

[snip]

doug wrote:

This is what makes your "theory" a joke. Someday you may learn that
equations are meaningless with a legend telling what the variables
are. You graphs are worthless without a legend and scales as well.

As well, x had better not be either i or j.

Doug ran out of arguments. I already presented n, m, i & j. And x
cannot be neither i nor j, a more complex formulation will be needed in
this case.

For an altitude of 20,200,000 m * 8 in the direction of the Sun we get:

t_fr = 99.999999995502%
t_gr = 99.99999993181%

In the opposite direction of the Sun we actually get:

t_fr = 99.99999993319%
t_gr = 99.99999993181%

Well see there is one of your problems already. This is wrong.

The altitude is 20,200,000 m * 16m or in free space. Since Doug has no
evidence, he is lying.

[...]