Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

Greg Neill wrote:

That's a non responsive answer.

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

Yes it can handle a thought experiment having 1 mass only. The
environment and the fudge factor simply soften the measurements.

In practice I don't see in what GR is better because it looks like
gravitational lensing calculations uses the following derivatives:
- Linearized Gravity
- Post-Newtonian formalism
- Einstein field equations
- Friedmann equations
- ADM formalism
- BSSN formalism

Sam Wormley wrote:

How, pray tell, did the Michelson–Morley experiment say anything
about cosmology? Can you tell us the connection? Do you know what
the Michelson–Morley experiment was?

No actually Einstein did not say the length needs to be contracted, but
Lorentz certainly did. Einstein handled the "absence of aether" blunder
and later in GR refer to spacetime as a "fabric", which are quite
contradicting.

All I'm saying is there is aether and that we are at the center of the
universe. This is consistent with what was seen by the MM experiment.

To prove this we need taking an high precision frequency meter in orbit
around the planet and measure the shift. Since astrophysicists can only
be the last people willing to do so, we need somebody else in charge of
this project.

On Apr 9, 6:47*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

* How, pray tell, did the Michelson–Morley experiment say anything
* about cosmology? Can you tell us the connection? Do you know what
* the Michelson–Morley experiment was?

No actually Einstein did not say the length needs to be contracted, but
Lorentz certainly did. *Einstein handled the "absence of aether" blunder
and later in GR refer to spacetime as a "fabric", which are quite
contradicting.

All I'm saying is there is aether and that we are at the center of the
universe. *This is consistent with what was seen by the MM experiment.

To prove this we need taking an high precision frequency meter in orbit
around the planet and measure the shift. *Since astrophysicists can only
be the last people willing to do so, we need somebody else in charge of
this project.

Send the mission into the center of the Great Attractor, and then do
your report.

~ BG

On Apr 9, 5:29*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

That's a non responsive answer.

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

Yes it can handle a thought experiment having 1 mass only. *The
environment and the fudge factor simply soften the measurements.

In practice I don't see in what GR is better because it looks like
gravitational lensing calculations uses the following derivatives:
- Linearized Gravity

GR under specific conditions.

- Post-Newtonian formalism

This is not GR.

- Einstein field equations

The field equations _DEFINE_ GR.

- Friedmann equations

Derived from GR under specific conditions.


- ADM formalism

Derived from GR under specific conditions.

- BSSN formalism

Can you even explain what the BSSN formalism is?

It looks like you found some list of stuff about GR and wrote them all
down in an attempt to make GR look stupid. Even though you have NO
IDEA what the terms mean. Everything written is rigorously derived,
with no "fudge factors". Unlike your spreadsheet program.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

That's a non responsive answer.

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

Yes it can handle a thought experiment having 1 mass only. The
environment and the fudge factor simply soften the measurements.

So let's proceed to delineate the differences between
FR and GR based upon a single mass scenario. Can
you provide your formula(s), with all variables defined,
for that scenario? Start with one mass, one observer, and
one clock, arranged as before. Use diagrams if clarity is
an issue.

doug wrote:

[...]

Been there, done that. See gps.

It needs to be done at lower altitudes.

Spend your own money are do whatever you want.

You mean on tangible things?

BradGuth wrote:

Send the mission into the center of the Great Attractor, and then do
your report.

Ok.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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.

I told you the answer but you were to stupid to realize it.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:


You have yet to show that you can do a calculation, Phil. Perhaps
you might try that. Show the exact equation and each number and
and its source (with physical units) and show the calculation
step by step. You have never done that, nor do you have the education
to do so.


Well up to now in 2 months I get the same answers as Einstein, and
without plagiarizing.

Except that all your answers are wrong and Einstein's are right.
Your gps calculation is totally wrong, you get the wrong values
and you think it varies on the different sides of the earth.
You think our weights vary by a factor of a billion between
day and night. You think a graph without a scale means something.
You think the earth is the center of the universe. You have no
clue about background calculations. You have no idea about the
field in the center of a sphere. You can only get a nearly
correct answer with a fudge factor which has no basis except
to adjust the horribly wrong answer to just a wrong answer but
that factor is different for every point in the universe
and for every mass and every velocity.


It looks like my education is better than Doug's since Doug thinks a
paradox is science.

Phil is the idiot who thinks his ignorance generates a paradox when
none exists. I cannot believe phil thinks he has shown one when
all he has done is demonstrate total ignorance of what relativity
says.

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.

We know that. You are completely wrong and you do not
see a problem. That comes from being stupid and lazy.



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.

Don't be silly.