Finite Relativism: Review Request

Greetings:

I have polished my equations inside my book and I would like to know if
anybody is willing reviewing it for a price. The mathematics are perfectly
valid but I would like further experimental assertions.

To introduce its concept better, here are its postulates:

+ The incident gravity flux crossing a body at high velocities relative
to its source induces dilation of time
+ The gravitational acceleration residuum is also responsible and
exactly proportional to the dilation of time
+ A mass reference frame only can rotate if overwhelmed by a greater
gravitational field

Which will lead to the consequent precepts:

+ The speed of light and the time dilation are correlative
+ Galactic scale masses are subject to their own frame of reference

And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation formulas
respectively used a

+ 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2)
+ (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2

One of a very controversial findings relates to the time taken for a light
ray traveling from here to Alpha Centauri. Albert Einstein speculated 4
years and I estimate at least 7 days... but far from 4 years! The proof can
be found inside the book.

What we see inside the solar system is negligible but outside is very
different. The latest version can be found he
https://www.createspace.com/3370163


Regards,
-Phil

On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:


And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation formulas
respectively used a

+ 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2)
+ (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2


You are still the same idiot

"Dono" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:


And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation formulas
respectively used a

+ 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2)
+ (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2


You are still the same idiot

Say something smarter, please.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:


And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation
formulas
respectively used a

+ 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2)
+ (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2


You are still the same idiot

Say something smarter, please.

You are steadfastly and undeniably the very same idiot.

"Dono" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:


And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation formulas
respectively used a

+ 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2)
+ (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2


You are still the same idiot

Let's get this over with. Lorentz transformations doesn't make any sense
and what these are represent ratios over their maximas if you haven't
noticed yet. Time dilation and gravitational time dilation are different in
the sense the former is incident and the latter is a result of acceleration.
But the details doesn't matter, just pass on to the next step in your
understandings.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message
...
On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:


And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation
formulas
respectively used a

+ 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2)
+ (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2


You are still the same idiot

Let's get this over with. Lorentz transformations doesn't make any sense

Translation: "I don't understand relativity, the math is too hard."

and what these are represent ratios over their maximas if you haven't
noticed yet.

Word salad.

Time dilation and gravitational time dilation are different in
the sense the former is incident and the latter is a result of
acceleration.

More salad. Where's the beef?

But the details doesn't matter, just pass on to the next step in your
understandings.

Some sort of philosophical jibe???

"Greg Neill" wrote in message
...

Translation: "I don't understand relativity, the math is too hard."

There is nothing hard to understand, no have no idea. Au contraire you're
the one who is bailing out. I gave you CLEAR equations that make sense and
you still can't understand... Ultimate precision can only be found by
quantum mechanics.

Einstein came up with the equivalence principle. This is a weak
understanding because he basically just realized a = Gm / r^2, which was
already proven by Newton centuries ago. What he really did came up with is
space contraction. Unfortunately there is no space contraction but
gravitational time dilation.

What I wrote is serious and I am willing to agree on a contract to add
experimental evidence to the matter.

[..]

What I wrote is serious and I am willing to agree on a contract to add
experimental evidence to the matter.


If you have experimental evidence that GR is wrong, you should publish it
immediately.

On Feb 28, 9:28 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
"Dono" wrote in message

...

On Feb 28, 8:55 pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:

And the associated time dilation and gravitational time dilation formulas
respectively used a

+ 1 / (1 - v^2/c^2)
+ (Gm)^2 / (xc^2)^2

You are still the same idiot

Let's get this over with. Lorentz transformations doesn't make any sense


You mean they don't make any sense to YOU, right?
What can be done, you are a hopeless imbecile, how can the Lorentz
transforms remedy this situation?

On Feb 28, 7:55*pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
[snip idiocy]

Nobody will ever buy your book. Go away.