Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

FR predicts a light beam from Earth to a similar planet from Andromeda
will
take:
2.6e4 years

GR anticipates:
2.5e6 years

This makes the light beam 9,705.9% faster at that scale. For Alpha
Centauri
we were talking about a 100.00080373% difference.

Detailed information of all variables used in the interstellar and
intergalactical contexts are included in the book. A visual representation
of the test I gave, which disproves length contraction and therefore Special
Relativity, is also included.

The title will be available soon at the following location:
https://www.createspace.com/3370163


-Phil

On Mar 17, 10:38*am, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
FR predicts a light beam from Earth to a similar planet from Andromeda
will
take:
2.6e4 years

GR anticipates:
2.5e6 years

This makes the light beam 9,705.9% faster at that scale. *For Alpha
Centauri
we were talking about a 100.00080373% difference.

Detailed information of all variables used in the interstellar and
intergalactical contexts are included in the book. *A visual representation
of the test I gave, which disproves length contraction and therefore Special
Relativity, is also included.

The title will be available soon at the following location:https://www.createspace.com/3370163

-Phil

I have a machine that can produce an infinite amount of free energy.
if you send me $39.95, i'll send you a blueprint.

kp

On Mar 17, 1:38*am, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:

[snip all, unread]

People stopped responding to Phil, so Phil starts a new thread.

Go away, Phil.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
FR predicts a light beam from Earth to a similar planet from Andromeda
will
take:
2.6e4 years

GR anticipates:
2.5e6 years

This makes the light beam 9,705.9% faster at that scale. For Alpha
Centauri
we were talking about a 100.00080373% difference.


Detailed information of all variables used in the interstellar and
intergalactical contexts are included in the book. A visual representation
of the test I gave, which disproves length contraction and therefore Special
Relativity, is also included.

The title will be available soon at the following location:
https://www.createspace.com/3370163


-Phil

So in your mind, randomly generated numbers from a spreadsheet
constitutes a theory? You have proved nothing except that
you do not understand relativity. Do you really think you
have shown anything? If what you consider disproof of
relativity was your silly ball in a box example that was
a pathetic attempt even by usenet crank standards.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
[snip crap]

This makes the light beam 9,705.9% faster at that scale.
[snip rest of crap]

idiot

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity

Science 323(5919) 1327 (2009)
Double pulsar J0737-3039A/B is within 0.05% of GR model
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/9148/title/Einstein_Unruffled_Relativity_passes_stringent_new _tests
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Mar 17, 5:38*am, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
FR predicts a light beam from Earth to a similar planet from Andromeda
will
take:
2.6e4 years

GR anticipates:
2.5e6 years

This makes the light beam 9,705.9% faster at that scale. *For Alpha
Centauri
we were talking about a 100.00080373% difference.

Detailed information of all variables used in the interstellar and
intergalactical contexts are included in the book. *A visual representation
of the test I gave, which disproves length contraction and therefore Special
Relativity, is also included.

The title will be available soon at the following location:https://www.createspace.com/3370163

-Phil

Please explain what experiment(s) you performed to falsify SR?

"doug" wrote in message
et...

So in your mind, randomly generated numbers from a spreadsheet
constitutes a theory? You have proved nothing except that
you do not understand relativity. Do you really think you
have shown anything? If what you consider disproof of
relativity was your silly ball in a box example that was
a pathetic attempt even by usenet crank standards.

Doug I think you're courageous inviting your own students seeing you live in
action on this usenet. I know standards in the education system felt down
badly because of the relatively low demand nowadays, but your situation is
exceptional. Now you're in a situation you can't get out of because there
is no way you can win. You had the worse grade, you failed to defend your
arguments and your vagues allegations of "a century of experiments" and you
come up with 0 scientific thought, but only hate and jealousy.

On Mar 17, 6:24*pm, "Phil Bouchard" wrote:
"doug" wrote in message

et...



So in your mind, randomly generated numbers from a spreadsheet
constitutes a theory? *You have proved nothing except that
you do not understand relativity. Do you really think you
have shown anything? If what you consider disproof of
relativity was your silly ball in a box example that was
a pathetic attempt even by usenet crank standards.

Doug I think you're courageous inviting your own students seeing you live in
action on this usenet. *I know standards in the education system felt down
badly because of the relatively low demand nowadays, but your situation is
exceptional. *Now you're in a situation you can't get out of because there
is no way you can win. *You had the worse grade, you failed to defend your
arguments and your vagues allegations of "a century of experiments" and you
come up with 0 scientific thought, but only hate and jealousy.

Why is a mediocre computer programmer coming here to whine about
relativity?

"doug" wrote in message
et...

Phil comes in here expecting to be regaled as a hero and instead falls
flat on his face by demonstrating he has no idea what relativity says.
He tells us he does not like it and he took a freshman physics course
so now he is an expert. And, he has a spreadsheet which can give numbers
to thirty decimal places. In phil's mind, that makes him the world's
greatest physicist. Phil has lost long before he started.

Once again Doug, this is no scientific argument. FR tends more to be a law
than a theory because its roots are purely mathematical.

Lets see, phil, you talked about tossing a ball wherein you demonstrated
conclusively you have no clue what relativity says. You made some
guesses from your spreadsheet in response to Sam (wrong guesses, by the
way) and then you proceed to bluster and look stupid. All of this is
to get everyone to pay $39.99 for a book to be written later when
phil actually tries to print out his spreasheeet code.

According to Doug here is a list of the smartest people of all time, in
order of precedence:

Einstein (proved singularity, wormhole, length contraction, velocity cap of
3e8 m/s)
God (will create infinite amount of universes on the fly accordingly)
Stephen Hawkins (confirmed wormholes)
Michio Kaku (predicted time travel in the past)
Doug (prophet)
Eric Gisse (faithful ipod fan)
Bill Gates (created crappy windows)

I am very happy to look at the last century of experiments and judge
them on their merits. It is phil who comes here having a tantrum about
how the world should bow down to him. My scientific thought is fine,
I am happy for any students to look at the century of experiments and
phil's laughable floundering and have them make up their own minds.

Nobody agreed paying taxes for your gravitational waves detection device, or
even labeling Einstein the miracle as the scientific of the 20th century.

"doug" wrote in message
et...

[...]

Einstein (proved singularity, wormhole, length contraction, velocity cap
of 3e8 m/s)

Einstein is a great mind.

Ahhahaha! Special Relativity was written by Mileva Maric, and GR spacetime
by Minkovsky. He truly came out with the photoelectric effect and its
opposite E = mcc but really are plagiarized from ealier theories.

Einstein wrote 2 papers at the right time and I give him that but everything
else is flawed.

In ten years lets see who is still remembered
phil, the newly arrived crank or Einstein whose work has withstood a
century of careful tests.

GR is a mapping of observations and cannot be used outside the galaxy. It
also disagrees with quantum mechanics.

God (will create infinite amount of universes on the fly accordingly)

Sorry, there are lots of gods to choose from so you will have
to specify which ones you mean.

Yahve, Jehovah or Allah are all the same god from Abraham.

[...]