|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1301
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
doug wrote:
[...] You have never been able to say what you think those laws are. I am able to and I have the specific words for it. [...] You really are a fool and have no idea what gps is about at all. But that is consistent with your demonstrated ignorance of science and math. Since the GPS is all about precision we can now silently dismiss GR. |
#1302
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: doug wrote: [...] That is an amazingly stupid statement. Since to have any hope of being right FR would have to exactly reproduce GR, then there are no changes necessary and nothing changes. I know you hope to get rich and famous off of this but the best you can hope for is to be listed on crank.net. I am not sure what you are attempting but this is certainly not science. No, FR is not science. FR uses physics laws, You have never been able to say what you think those laws are. is more precise You have demonstrated you have no idea what this means. and does not require slow square roots cycles out of the CPU. The universe does not care what is needed in any cpu. I am not sure either why would the government trust blunders and pay more expensive high altitude satellites for it. You really are a fool and have no idea what gps is about at all. But that is consistent with your demonstrated ignorance of science and math. [...] |
#1303
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Sam Wormley wrote:
Calculating square roots is trivial for CPUs. No it's not. For a truncated integer it will look like this: http://jodarom.sdf1.org/code/arith/isqrt_ia32_joda.c [...] |
#1304
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Sam Wormley wrote:
Not only are you deficient in GPS, Physics, Mathematics, but you are also somewhat deficient in modern numerical algorithms! If you found an error to the aforementioned code then submit a bug to John L. Dahlstrom. If the instruction is internal it will still follow a similar process. |
#1305
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
On Apr 29, 1:30*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote: * Calculating square roots is trivial for CPUs. No it's not. *For a truncated integer it will look like this:http://jodarom.sdf1.org/code/arith/isqrt_ia32_joda.c [...] 20 lines of C _IS_ trivial compared to a decent Runga-Kutta implementation. Face if Phil, you don't belong with physics. Find a new hobby. |
#1306
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
doug wrote:
There is no evidence of it in anything you have done. You are lying. I have the right graphs at all scales. The evidence will be shown to the local university since you do not demonstrate a responsible behavior and then to computer scientists, mathematicians and engineers. [...] |
#1307
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: doug wrote: [...] You have never been able to say what you think those laws are. I am able to and I have the specific words for it. There is no evidence of it in anything you have done. You are lying. [...] You really are a fool and have no idea what gps is about at all. But that is consistent with your demonstrated ignorance of science and math. Since the GPS is all about precision we can now silently dismiss GR. Since FR is all about ignorance we can dismiss it but not without a good laugh at it first. |
#1308
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: doug wrote: There is no evidence of it in anything you have done. You are lying. I have the right graphs at all scales. Except that they give wrong answers. You work is a joke. A bad joke which was funny for a while but is getting dull now. The evidence will be shown to the local university since you do not demonstrate a responsible behavior and then to computer scientists, mathematicians and engineers. So you consider pointing out your mistakes is considered by you to not show a responsible behaviour. That shows how weak any of your thoughts are that they cannot stand even the slightest of scrutiny. Your local university gets lots of cranks showing up with their great theories and proofs of one kind or another. These kind of things get passed around to laugh at. Some profs will politely encourage you to study, many will just throw the nonsense in a trashcan and go on to the next one they got that day. If I thought you had something, I would help you to get it actually looked at in the university system. But you have nothing. Showing your work to computer scientists will either provoke laughter if they did not sleep in their math and physics classes or a "so what" if, like you, they did sleep there. Mathematicians tend to not know science but they would also laugh at your feeble attempts at math. Engineers will just wonder why you are bothering. They generally know nothing about relativity either. Notice the groups of them that show up here with their own crackpot ideas. You will find that you are near the bottom of the barrel for cranks, ahead only of people like koobee, strich, hanson and potter. [...] |
#1309
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
doug wrote:
Except that they give wrong answers. You work is a joke. A bad joke which was funny for a while but is getting dull now. So you consider pointing out your mistakes is considered by you to not show a responsible behaviour. That shows how weak any of your thoughts are that they cannot stand even the slightest of scrutiny. Well according to you a paradox isn't a paradox, Wikipedia is written by cranks and nature is defined by square roots. Even if I come up with the exact same answers as GR down to the order of 1 ns it is still wrong. If I get the rotation curve of the galaxies right, link with QM by accepting FTL and I get the exact same gravitational time dilation curve around the Earth with one theory of two simple postulates then I think you're the one in error. Your local university gets lots of cranks showing up with their great theories and proofs of one kind or another. These kind of things get passed around to laugh at. Some profs will politely encourage you to study, many will just throw the nonsense in a trashcan and go on to the next one they got that day. If I thought you had something, I would help you to get it actually looked at in the university system. But you have nothing. The local branch is more powerful than yours and I've already been there many times. It seems dark matter is a very active subject so they are either with it or against it. Theories are also laughable when it is wrong but in my case I am using physics laws into a general mathematical representation. Showing your work to computer scientists will either provoke laughter if they did not sleep in their math and physics classes or a "so what" if, like you, they did sleep there. You cannot discriminate those who sleep in their classes. All that matters are the answers in the exams. Mathematicians tend to not know science but they would also laugh at your feeble attempts at math. Engineers will just wonder why you are bothering. They generally know nothing about relativity either. Notice the groups of them that show up here with their own crackpot ideas. You will find that you are near the bottom of the barrel for cranks, ahead only of people like koobee, strich, hanson and potter. Doug is acting like a knows-it-all goody-two-shoes. Mathematicians are mostly women and are very nice people to work with. Engineers don't like spending their time on blunders. |
#1310
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
doug wrote:
That is too complicated math for Phil. He is still working on multiplication. You notice how much time he spends on his fudge factor so he can use it to multiply his random number generator by to get the correct answer. Except he does not even get it then. Well the fudge factor is very significant because if it isn't null at superclusters scale then it means the universe is even bigger than we think it is. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Finite Relativism: Review Request | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 519 | September 25th 12 12:26 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 |
GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 12 | January 1st 09 03:20 PM |
BLAMING SPECIAL RELATIVITY? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | July 13th 08 01:05 PM |