|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote:
[snip all] Not being able to convince a crank that he is wrong does not make the crank right. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
Sam Wormley wrote:
Comments: "Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof" ISBN: 978-1441453105 That was fast... 1. The title is unfortunate, given the evidence for Dark Matter. Where? All experiments failed proving it. 2. pg xi "This [General Relativity] therefore implies time becomes itself a dimension and causes the theory [General Relativity] opening doors to ideas such as: ... Cosmic acceleration faster than c" It is too bad that this fellow, Mr. Santos, whom you acknowledge for trying to disprove your theories, nor your father, whom you claim has a M.Sc. Physics degree, did not catch the glaring errors in the book. The book doesn't get anything right. It is a common mistake of a kid elementary or high school to confuse acceleration and velocity, as you did in this statement, "Cosmic acceleration faster than c". Acceleration and velocity are not comparable with the word 'faster'. That makes to sense whatsoever! I forgot correcting the term over there. 3. pg 14 (pages 1-12 appear to be missing). You state that the Lorentz time transformation for an observer and a moving clock is t_o = γ t_f Should not that be t_o = γ (t_f - x v/c^2) where v is the velocity along the x-axis? Was not this discussed in this forum some months ago? Note that γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation 4. pgs 16-17, Section 1.3. Twin Paradox What you have written, Phil, is not Einstein's The Twin Paradox! Furthermore, you claim the ship in your diagrams travels with respect to a clock at a velocity greater than c. It's the same thing. Did ANYBODY proof this crap before you published it? What a waste of paper and ink! Tell that to the Superstring theorist! |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: Doug is lying and he simply hopes he doesn't have to learn any calculus. Phil considers that him posting completely wrong answers and claiming that proves something is somehow doing science. Phil does not know math or science and, if you read the "paper", you can laugh at his pitiful attempt to do the inside the sphere calculation. He gets the answer completely wrong but has no clue why. The rest of his posting is similarly incompetent. Dirk Van de moortel wrote: I agree that if anything deserved a top-posted reply, it was this one. Dirk Vdm |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: Uncle Al wrote: Crap attracts flies or it doesn't. It is still crap. Post calculation of GPS correction. Section 2.1.2: http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...ci_physics.pdf It gets the gps correction wrong. Post derivation of periastron precession showing it scales as (semi-major axis)^(-3). As shown in the middle bottommost label after 3 revolutions, we see the perihelion precession to the order of 10^-7 rad/cycle: http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr.exe It gets this wrong too. Post your derivation of acceleration of falling light vs. a massed body. http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ Section 3.4.1, Figure 5 The number of proven facts outstands the undone to show GR can be replaced with FR. Well, no since FR gets everything wrong. The behavior of the photon will have similar effects but I still question the exactitude of the solar mass. What about refraction effects? What about them? Do you want to show your ignorance there too? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
doug wrote:
[...] So there is at least one disproof of your claim. And, it is not a units problem. The formula is completely wrong. You have been told this but, since you have never looked at any textbooks, you are unable to understand it. According to Doug, the inside the sphere gravitational potential is already calculated. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
Sam Wormley wrote:
Tell me, Phil, how do you reconcile the differences between the derivation of the Lorentz Transform and Wiki page you site? Are you not curious? Can you do the derivation yourself? Do you have the foggiest idea of what the Lorentz Transform is? I am really disappointed in you! I don't have time answering at this moment. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: doug wrote: Phil considers that him posting completely wrong answers and claiming that proves something is somehow doing science. Phil does not know math or science and, if you read the "paper", you can laugh at his pitiful attempt to do the inside the sphere calculation. He gets the answer completely wrong but has no clue why. The rest of his posting is similarly incompetent. Well the goal of this thread is to disprove FR. You have ignored the mistakes already pointed out to you and so we expect you will try to ignore the rest. There is no talking physics to you since you are blind to science. But we all noticed you ran out of scientific arguments a long time ago so don't feed on things I already stated. The measurement unit problem of the inside a sphere is a simple mass density division error I need to correct. So there is at least one disproof of your claim. And, it is not a units problem. The formula is completely wrong. You have been told this but, since you have never looked at any textbooks, you are unable to understand it. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: doug wrote: [...] Well, no since FR gets everything wrong. So I conclude you cannot bring any exact disproof and consequently agree with FR. FR has done nothing correctly. That is a fact which you want to ignore in your delusions. What about them? Do you want to show your ignorance there too? It's very easy to do since the photon will be exposed for a longer time close to the gravitational field. Yes, you do want to show your ignorance there as well. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
doug wrote:
Well, yes it has. In fact it was done centuries ago. But you would have to look at a textbook to know that. Doug still confuses an empty shell with a solid sphere. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: doug wrote: [...] So there is at least one disproof of your claim. And, it is not a units problem. The formula is completely wrong. You have been told this but, since you have never looked at any textbooks, you are unable to understand it. According to Doug, the inside the sphere gravitational potential is already calculated. Well, yes it has. In fact it was done centuries ago. But you would have to look at a textbook to know that. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Finite Relativism Undisproven | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 2 | August 26th 09 03:02 PM |
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 1366 | May 2nd 09 12:04 AM |
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof | Eric Gisse | Astronomy Misc | 0 | April 3rd 09 06:14 AM |
25% OFF -- Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 28th 09 09:54 AM |
Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 4 | January 26th 09 09:00 PM |