Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

On Apr 9, 11:54*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
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.

[...]

Now for giggles, why don't you explain how the **** you derived that
monstrosity?

Phil Bouchard wrote:
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.

But you said that FR could handle a solitary mass. Local
stars and galaxies are irrelevant. Have you changed your
mind?

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.

So FR cannot treat a solitary mass, the simplest of possible
non-empty universes. That would appear to be a fatal blow
to FR, making it just another fudged curve fitting exercise
rather than a theory.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
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.

How is that? The SR velocity related time dilation cannot
account for what is observed, particularly as it contributes
an opposing value to the GR effect for orbiting bodies.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
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.

You're talking but you're not understanding. To paraphrase
an old saying, your speech is like a great river; there's
more at the mouth than there is at the source.

How is it that you cannot absorb the fact that all the
moving clocks we have access to test *both* relativistic
effects very effectively? They are trivial to separate
in the data because they vary in opposite directions with
the elevation for orbiting bodies.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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

Silly. Why not just use x and y then?

What happened to z?

What's a %i ?

What function is li[2] ?

Is your log function log base 10 or the natural log? If log
base 10, how do you justify the choice of base? In most cases
of the mathematics of natural systems, the logarithms tend to
fall out as base e unless pains are taken to force conversion
to another base by doing something clever. I don't see anything
clever happening here.


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

yeah, riiiiight.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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.

You mean blunders like needing a different fudge factor for
every point in the universe or assuming the earth is the
center of the universe?

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

Since you have done very little math, you might not be aware that
there are proper ways to write equations so they are readable. You
als do not seem to realize that you do not mix radial coordinates
and rectangular coordinates. You also do not seem to realize that
a sphere is a three dimensional object and you only have x and y.

Beyone that, your "equation" is a mass of meaningless drivel.
You have severe math comprehension problems. Look at this
part of your expression: atan2((r-i)/(r-j),0). This is pretty
funny. I will let you see if you can figure out why.


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

It will never be correct as it is total nonsense. Why don't you just
tell us where you think you got it from and we can help you learn
something.


[...]

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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.

No, you are the one confused. The "kinetic" shift you talk about
has been measured quite well in different situations over the
last century. You really should try reading some time.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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.

You are too lazy to look but no it does not change with season.

[...]

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.

Except that all the predictions you have made are completely wrong.


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.

Well, since you know no physics, you might as well demonstrate your
stupidity in QM as well. I would hope you know some cs but, given
how resistent you were to learning in math and science, I am not
hopeful. Sorry but the math section here is help by another
famous crank, James Harris. You are nowhere near as practiced
at being a crank as he is.

And there is nothing to deal with androcles on. He knows nothing
and is even arguing with another crank, Ralph (Henri).

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

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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.

So what you are saying is the FR cannot calculate anything from
first principles.


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.

You are proving only that you have no clue.

On Apr 10, 12:04*am, Phil Bouchard wrote:
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.

Were you fired from your job? Is that why you are posting idiocies
full time now?