Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

On Apr 9, 3:04*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:

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.

U have gone over the point of no return. I thought that you are an
idiot but you are an insane idiot :-)

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.

It is good to see you expanding your realm of ignorance.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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.

Well, since the effect is seen outside the sphere, you do
not need the inside solution which we have given you and
you were too stupid to understand.

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

So no, you do not realize how stupid you sound.

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.

Yes and FR=GIGO.

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.

Well, you should read a bit and try to learn something.

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

No, you have no clue about gps either.

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

Your ignorance is not a scientific argument.

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.

[...]

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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

[...]

So when phil demonstrates his ignorance beyond belief he generates
random quotes. When is phil going to start working to actually
learn something? Or is he a hopeless crank like seto and the others?

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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.

And phil has no idea what the evidence is.

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

That is not what Einstein said and you are pretty silly and
arrogant to think the earth is the center of the universe.

Greg Neill wrote:

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?

Well we already have an Atlas of the Universe we see:
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/

I don't see where the problem is. Furthermore since FR is more
revealing than GR at the cosmos scale given that the respective fudge
factor will be lesser than interstellar scales, it is more useful and
precise than GR.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

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?

Well we already have an Atlas of the Universe we see:
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/

I don't see where the problem is. Furthermore since FR is more
revealing than GR at the cosmos scale given that the respective fudge
factor will be lesser than interstellar scales, it is more useful and
precise than GR.

That's a non responsive answer.

So you agree then that FR cannot handle a simple
theoretical thought experiment involving only a
single mass?

Sam Wormley wrote:

Ah yes... the right equation. I does help to have equations
that model the behavior of nature. Such as those of special
and general relativity.

GR predictions such as singularities, wormholes, length and mass
contraction, velocity cap of 3e8 m/s, the Hubble sphere problem, time
travel in the past and consequently an infinite amount of universes
created on the fly, dark matter and an inflating bread-like space, are a
little bit misleading. Unless those are intentionally there.

What do you mean by "kinetic" time dilation, Phil?

SR time dilation.

Some relativistic corrections are combined in the form of an
offset on board satellites, others are handled in GPS receivers.
If you would like to read about it, I'll provide you with references.

The real corrections made with the almanac satellite for an absolute
synchronization, would be more prominent. I'm not sure if those are
silently discarded but it looks like it.

You are wrong, Phil, all the relativistic corrections are modeled
by general relativity.

Let's take a look at all corrections with the almanac made at each
moment of the year and by the same satellite.

You are employed as a software engineer in California, right?
And some years ago you earned a mathematics and computer science
degree from Université de Sherbrooke, Right?

You don't know that, unless you're a federal agent.

So's how come you can't seem to do any physics calculations?
Especially involving relativity? Why is that?

What? Where? When? I keep showing the differences between GR and FR.

You are the second young guy in the last couple of month with
a real problem to start posting on sci.physics with no apparent
background in physics and with no desire to learn anything.
Why is that?

Since SR is made out of two false postulates, somebody needs making
efforts reengineering it. Doug have shown noncooperation in doing so
and misbehavior thus I'll handle it.