Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

doug wrote:

[...]

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

So that means you like them now?

I never said there's anything wrong with black holes.

Doug confused black holes with singularities and wormholes I kept iterating.

- FR is a much better formula for gravitational lensing

Since it just guesses at everything it can make mistakes on that
as well.

Well it sounds like the mass of local clusters is needed either way and
that is all FR requires.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

[...]

- The center of the Earth requires more complex calculations


No, it does not. Your ignorance is showing.


Yes and the center of the Earth should actually have the highest
gravitational time dilation factor.

Well no, it will have the smallest.

- The surface of the Earth is the exact same as that of GR


It can be fiddled to be that but you have shown nothing.


t_fr = ((m/((x-i)))^2 + (n/((x-j)))^2 + h)/ ((m/i)^2 + (n/j)^2 + h)
t_gr = √(1 - 2gm / (|i| * c^2)) / √(1 - 2gm / ((x + |i|) * c^2))

Where
h = 2.5e45 (fudge factor)

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.


Are both equal to 1 if x = 0 m.

[...]

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

Predict the time dilation in free space relative to the earth.


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.

It is hilarious to watch your stupidity. You did not understand the
gps comment and you are wallowing in your ignorance. I see why
you did badly in school.


For the amount of time I gave studying before the exams, it wasn't bad.

It shows here that you did not learn anything in either science or math.

Sam Wormley wrote:

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:


You obviously have no idea what you are doing... Your stuff is all
bull****
and it's wrong. Why do you think I asked you about satellite clocks
at an
orbital altitude of 202km ? You are PFS Phil.... PFS!


Why do you think I explicitly answered you with:
y = 0.99999999997891; (FR)
y = 0.99999999997863; (GR)



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

You also have to remember that phil thinks the gps corrections
are several times bigger when the satellite is on the sun side
of the earth.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

[...]

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


According to Doug a paradox isn't a paradox and perfectly valid
mathematical representations are guesses.

According to phil, his ignorance is a paradox. Cranks are like that.
According to phil, putting random numbers in a spreadsheet is science.
Phil does seem to be aware that changing his fudge factor for every
point in the universe means it is meaningless.


[...]

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:


No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html


So yeah according to Einstein the galaxies do not expand away from each
other, but the universe itself inflates like a bred.

Your ignorance does not change the universe.

This is what I am talking about when I refer to "blunders".

By "blunder" phil means something he either does not understand
or like.


I will add
this to my catchphrase.

Yes, do. It is a collection of your stupidity as it is so
add whatever to it.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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

Well, your ignorance is not a scientific argument.

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

So that means you like them now?

- FR is a much better formula for gravitational lensing

Since it just guesses at everything it can make mistakes on that
as well.

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.

I guess whatever you want to translate "wrong" as. Phil you still
have not gotten anything right.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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.

So you realize your formula is nonsense. The more you talk, the more
ignorant you demonstrate yourself to be. It is almost embarrassing
to continue to point out your stupidity on scientific matters.

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.

Well, that is a bold claim to make when you have no clue what
experiments have done. This is part of the path of the crank.
They all get into this "but everyone must be lying because
I think I am right" mode. Watch seto and wilson and strich
and koobee and any of the others here.


[...]

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

[...]

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


So that means you like them now?


I never said there's anything wrong with black holes.

Doug confused black holes with singularities and wormholes I kept
iterating.

Lets see who it is that is confused. Try reading sometime
and you will be surprised.

- FR is a much better formula for gravitational lensing


Since it just guesses at everything it can make mistakes on that
as well.


Well it sounds like the mass of local clusters is needed either way and
that is all FR requires.

Well, another wrong guess on phil's part.

In article ,
"Greg Neill" wrote:

Phil Bouchard wrote:

snip

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

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

I must have missed his simple, neat solutions: however simple it may
seem in his own mind, the stuff I've seen here has been mostly
convoluted and untidy. Maybe if he were to show us his spreadsheet we
could admire the neatness of the way the cells line up in rows and
columns.

--
Odysseus