Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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.

Look, phil is having a tantrum again.

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.

Well, no but you have been wrong about everything so far.

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.

Go ahead and you will see you are wrong.

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.

Must not be much of a university since you learned no math
or physics.

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.

Yes, GR is right, FR is wrong.

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,

Phil does not understand that his silly opinions have
no effect on the validity of the postulates.

somebody needs making
efforts reengineering it. Doug have shown noncooperation in doing so
and misbehavior thus I'll handle it.

I have been very cooperative. I have been trying hard to help
you not look like so much of a fool.

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.

Meaning you need to find another random number so that FR is only
badly wrong instead of horribly wrong.

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

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,

Uh huh. Now read the rest of what he said.

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.

Only to a cs guy who has studied no physics.

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.

Well, no, you are are quite wrong again.

To prove this we need taking an high precision frequency meter in orbit
around the planet and measure the shift.

Been there, done that. See gps.

Since astrophysicists can only
be the last people willing to do so, we need somebody else in charge of
this project.

Spend your own money are do whatever you want.

On Apr 9, 7:50*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:

[...]

Been there, done that. See gps.

It needs to be done at lower altitudes.

Idiot.

Pound-Rebka? That's at whatever elevation Harvard sits.
Hafele-Keating? Probably 30 some thousand feet.
Gravity Probe A? Up and down to the bitty-bottom of LEO.

You are wrong. Shut the **** up.


Spend your own money are do whatever you want.

You mean on tangible things?

We don't need an 800+ post thread to establish that a CS guy with no
physics education in fact knows nothing about physics, yet here we are.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

[...]

Been there, done that. See gps.


It needs to be done at lower altitudes.

This is standard crank material. When the experiments
show you are wrong, you ask for more experiments in
the desperate hope something will go your way. But
you have never looked at what experiments have
been done so phil just ends up looking even more
stupid.


Spend your own money are do whatever you want.


You mean on tangible things?

doug wrote:

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.

Doug, do you agree "cos(0) = 1"? Are we in the same world? In mine
paradoxes and blunders aren't acceptable because science requires
exactitude. Informality is found in politics in general, maybe you want
to take a look.

The kg^2/m^2 factor inside a sphere is given by an equation that looks
like the following:
((r^2-j^2-i^2)*atan2(r-j,r-i)*log((r^2-2*i*r+i^2)/(r^2-2*j*r+j^2))+(%i*r^2-%i*j^2-%i*i^2)*li[2](((%i+1)*r-j-%i*i)/(r-j))+
(-%i*r^2+%i*j^2+%i*i^2)*li[2](-((%i-1)*r+j-%i*i)/(r-j))+log(2*r^2+(-2*j-2*i)*r+j^2+j^2)*
((r^2-j^2-i^2)*atan2((r-i)/(r-j),0)+(-2*j-2*i)*r+4*i*j)+(-4*j*r+4*j^2-4*i^2)*atan((r-i)/(r-j))-4*i*r*atan2(r-j,r-i)-2*
r^2+4*j*r)/(2*r^2)

Whe
r = radius (center = (0, 0))
i = x coordinate of probe / observer
j = y coordinate of probe / observer

I'm not done yet and the equation won't work because it is incomplete
but I almost got it.

[...]

Eric Gisse wrote:

Idiot.

Pound-Rebka? That's at whatever elevation Harvard sits.
Hafele-Keating? Probably 30 some thousand feet.
Gravity Probe A? Up and down to the bitty-bottom of LEO.

You are wrong. Shut the **** up.

I'm talking about a kinetic frequency shift, not gravitational time
dilation little boy. I can't imagine your mummy when she doesn't cook
something you like.

We don't need an 800+ post thread to establish that a CS guy with no
physics education in fact knows nothing about physics, yet here we are.

Go play with your Jedis then.

Sam Wormley wrote:

There are hundreds of LEO satellite clocks confirming general
relativity exquisitely! Surprise Phil!

You're confusing general relativity gravitational time dilation with the
kinetic frequency shift I was talking about.

Sam Wormley wrote:

[...]

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

Indeed, let's see if the gravitational time dilation is exactly 38 ns a
day at every time of the year.

[...]

I have been employed by the feds. Don't forget about your "public"
information. You know the usual... facebook, linkedin, IP address,
and scores of other sources of information about you on the world
wide web.

You don't need to do that. All you need to do is call you federal
friends and ask. They even track your performance in Vegas based on
your credit card number.

I repeat, how come you can't seem to do any physics calculations?
You post to sci.physics.relativity. Why is it you can never do
any calculations correctly?

Don't listen to what Doug says. FR equations are perfectly fine.

The postulates Einstein used in his 1905 paper are not understood
by you. You lack tutoring in physics. Folks ignore your blatherings.

One by one people will plonk you out of existence... till there
are only other trolls to play with.

Well then I'll move on to QM, CS, Math and Engineering. Doug can defend
Einstein against Androcles for the next 15 years.

I'm not sure if you read this:
http://christianparty.net/einsteinplagiarist.htm


"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

"If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only
have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more
plants, no more animals, no more man." -- Albert Einstein

"With fame I become more and more stupid, which of course is a very
common phenomenon." -- Albert Einstein

"The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

Greg Neill wrote:

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.

If you want to compare FR with GR then you need data on the planet, the
local star and the fudge factor of the host galaxy.

A FR thought experiment having 1 planet is good for having an idea on
the asymptotes of the curves. This is what I do when I am disproving
dark matter for example. It consists of an universe with 1 galaxy only.