A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Finite Relativism Disproof



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 3rd 09, 09:41 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

This is an official thread to confirm Finite Relativism remains
undisproven. Once again the paper can be found at the aforementioned
address:
http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...ci_physics.pdf

As noticed by Jim Black, section 1.4.1 has a slight error but is
irrelevant to the rest of the paper. This was taken out in other versions.


Thank you,
-Phil
  #2  
Old September 3rd 09, 09:56 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Helmut Wabnig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 86
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:41:55 -0700, Phil Bouchard
wrote:

This is an official thread to confirm Finite Relativism remains
undisproven. Once again the paper can be found at the aforementioned
address:
http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...ci_physics.pdf

As noticed by Jim Black, section 1.4.1 has a slight error but is
irrelevant to the rest of the paper. This was taken out in other versions.


Thank you,
-Phil



Could you please clarify something from that pdf:

First let’s define its postulates:


The kinetic energy of body relative to its
maxima induces dilation of time.


There is a grammatical error in that sentence
(article missing)

The kinetic energy of a body relative to its
maxima induces dilation of time


What are the maxima (plural) of a body (singular)?


w.
  #3  
Old September 3rd 09, 10:07 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Dirk Van de moortel[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 95
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

I agree that if anything deserved a top-posted reply, it was
this one.

Dirk Vdm

doug wrote in message
net
You still have no clue about the inside the sphere solution
so that section is nonsense. You still get the time dilation
wrong. You have done nothing right.

Your comment about not needing to do a math proof is
hilarious and shows you are a complete buffoon when it
comes to science.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

This is an official thread to confirm Finite Relativism remains
undisproven. Once again the paper can be found at the aforementioned
address:
http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...ci_physics.pdf

As noticed by Jim Black, section 1.4.1 has a slight error but is
irrelevant to the rest of the paper. This was taken out in other versions.


Thank you,
-Phil



  #4  
Old September 3rd 09, 10:12 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
Uncle Al
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 697
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

Phil Bouchard wrote:

This is an official thread to confirm Finite Relativism remains
undisproven.

[snip crap]

Crap attracts flies or it doesn't. It is still crap.

Post calculation of GPS correction.
Post derivation of periastron precession showing it scales as
(semi-major axis)^(-3).
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

idiot

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
  #5  
Old September 3rd 09, 11:02 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

Doug is lying and he simply hopes he doesn't have to learn any calculus.

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
I agree that if anything deserved a top-posted reply, it was
this one.

Dirk Vdm

  #6  
Old September 3rd 09, 11:05 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,129
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

You still have no clue about the inside the sphere solution
so that section is nonsense. You still get the time dilation
wrong. You have done nothing right.

Your comment about not needing to do a math proof is
hilarious and shows you are a complete buffoon when it
comes to science.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

This is an official thread to confirm Finite Relativism remains
undisproven. Once again the paper can be found at the aforementioned
address:
http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...ci_physics.pdf

As noticed by Jim Black, section 1.4.1 has a slight error but is
irrelevant to the rest of the paper. This was taken out in other versions.


Thank you,
-Phil

  #7  
Old September 3rd 09, 11:29 PM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

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

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

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. The behavior of the photon will have similar effects
but I still question the exactitude of the solar mass. What about
refraction effects?
  #8  
Old September 3rd 09, 11:52 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

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. 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.
  #9  
Old September 4th 09, 12:02 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Phil Bouchard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,402
Default Finite Relativism Disproof

doug wrote:

[...]

Well, no since FR gets everything wrong.


So I conclude you cannot bring any exact disproof and consequently agree
with FR.

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.
  #10  
Old September 4th 09, 12:13 AM posted to alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.astro,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
eric gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 342
Default 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


HAHAHAHA

Pulling fudge factors out of your ass isn't a calculation.

[snip rest]
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 10:54 AM
Finite Relativism and Dark Matter Disproof Phil Bouchard Astronomy Misc 4 January 26th 09 10:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.