Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

Sam Wormley wrote:

You wrote theta = 4Gm / rc^2 and you are unwilling or unable
to plug some numbers in and show your calculation! Is that right?

No, I'm talking about FR gravitational lensing. It needs an inside the
sphere equation first, which I am doing in my spare time.

On Apr 9, 1:32*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

* I have a whole book of Einstein quotes...

* Phil, you wrote, "...given that the Earth is the center of the
* universe no aether can ever be detected from its surface using
* low precision instruments".

* What makes you think the earth is the center of the universe?

Because the MM experiment proved it.

Uhhhh....that isn't what the Michelson-Morley experiment (and
subsequent..) established.

Try again.

Greg Neill wrote:

You've ignored the fact that I clearly stated that *only*
the Earth's contribution was being considered. The Sun (and
anything else) is not relevant here. Or are you saying that
your theory is incapable of handling a lone mass?

The reality is more complicated than you think. Fortunately we have
computers so all that needs to be done is enter the right equations.

Further, your statement about the GR results being a daily
average is false. GPS clocks are in continuous use, and
such fluctuations through the day would be obvious. The
same is true for the network of atomic clocks around the
globe. Where the "observer" is who is requesting clock
readings from other sites does not affect that site's
clocks.

All I am aware of is 38 ns are being measured as a kinetic and
gravitational time dilation consequences after one day.

Gravitational time dilation interpolates all this and many corrections
are being made continuously in the meantime with a main satellite.

Therefore many factors are involved besides pure GR predictions for one
instant.

That's a bold statement considering how often it's changed
already. Also, the Sun is not guaranteed to always be
in such a lonely neighborhood, and relatively close encounters
with other stars are probable.

If it enters in collision with Andromeda, probably.

[...]

doug wrote:

[...]

I know you do not want to be laughed at even more than you
are now so I see why you do not want to share your lack
of math skills.

It is pretty funny already:

"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

[...]

On Apr 9, 1:12*pm, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 9, 12:00*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

Do you have any clue whow stupid this sounds?

"A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be."
-- Albert Einstein

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

You are not Einstein.

Of course not, he's just an imbecile in the style of Ken ****o.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

[...]

How can that be if the distance from the center of gravitation
(the Earth's center -- remember, we're only considering the
Earth's contribution here) is the same? Are you saying that
the Earth's field is not spherically symmetric?


Because the Sun's influence is slightly different behind and ahead of
the Earth. The distance from the Sun never is the same either.

Empirically, the gravitational influence on clocks depends
only on the radial distance. Satellite clocks bear this out,
as do the network of atomic clocks on the Earth's surface.
So your theory is shown to be wrong versus empirical data
yet again.


All that is given is the average of both kinetic and gravitational time
dilations after one day of operation. Each instants are different.

Well, we see another thing you do not know.

[...]

GR turns out the answers without the need for buggy computer
code or mysterious fudge factors that seem to vary from point
to point and moment to moment.


The fudge factor is an ambient influence and needs to be calculated once
for each scale. The solar system fudge factor is around 2.5e45 km^2/m^2
and will be good until the death of the Milky Way.

But it is different at every point in the galaxy since it
equals the GR answer divided by the FR answer.

Sorry, but I can't see that at all from the nature of your
mathematical expressions. And I haven't seen you wield
calculus at all, so it's a moot point.


Give me an address or PO box and I will send a copy. I am not sharing
this over here.

I know you do not want to be laughed at even more than you
are now so I see why you do not want to share your lack
of math skills.

Is this an example of your professional programming skills?
The first three links on the page return a "You are not
authorized to view this page" message. Sloppy.


I deleted the files because I don't use this homepage anymore. This
dates back from 2003 as you can see.

Yes, just as sloppy as your attempted physics.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:


Which demonstrates you have never studied any physics.


Since Doug only knows about blunders and paradoxes, he thinks being
wrong is perfectly valid.

No, that is phil's approach. We have showed him his mistakes and
he feels that it is better to be resolute than correct. Besides
studying would be work and phil is lazy.

Eric Gisse wrote:

Uhhhh....that isn't what the Michelson-Morley experiment (and
subsequent..) established.

Try again.

What you conclude out of it is relative. All we know is evidence.

Einstein thought the experiment needs to contract and I say the Earth
needs to be the center of the universe.

doug wrote:

No, that is phil's approach. We have showed him his mistakes and
he feels that it is better to be resolute than correct. Besides
studying would be work and phil is lazy.

I'm in the process of simplifying some integrals so I am not done yet as
far as the inside the sphere calculation is concerned.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

You've ignored the fact that I clearly stated that *only*
the Earth's contribution was being considered. The Sun (and
anything else) is not relevant here. Or are you saying that
your theory is incapable of handling a lone mass?

The reality is more complicated than you think. Fortunately we have
computers so all that needs to be done is enter the right equations.

So, your FR theory is incapable of handling a case (call
it a thought experiment if you wish) where only one massive
body is involved?