|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1322
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
doug wrote:
[...] Everybody will agree on the cannonball experiment: http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...annonballs.pdf Everyone agrees that phil has no clue about relativity. It is funny to see you make a fool of yourself and think you can use that as a basis for a new theory. No actually I wrote that because I was told SR needed to be disproved. But the square root idiocy is enough showing both SR & GR are blunders. |
#1323
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
doug wrote:
Yes, so you need a different fudge factor for every point in the universe like I told you. That means you do not have a theory. Having the fudge factor of the Milky Way allows us processing interstellar measurements for a long time. The fudge factor of Virgo handles in turn the Milky Way for a long time. If you are interested in precise gravitational lensing then I suggest you take universe atlas on one computer and do all the zooming you wanna do. What else do I need to tell you? Oh here's one more thing: "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" -- Albert Einstein [...] |
#1324
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Sam Wormley wrote:
?? "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." -- Albert Einstein |
#1325
|
|||
|
|||
I await Sam Wormley's better solution.
lid wrote:
What, pray tell, makes Sam Wormley think Phil Bouchard is “ deficient in modern numerical algorithms ” ? Is there something wrong with this ? : http://jodarom.sdf1.org/code/arith/isqrt_ia32_joda.c I await Sam Wormley's better solution. Doug and Sam cannot answer the absolute of the inverse square law integral. They simply switched to straight lies now. |
#1326
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote: [...] Everybody will agree on the cannonball experiment: http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...annonballs.pdf Everyone agrees that phil has no clue about relativity. It is funny to see you make a fool of yourself and think you can use that as a basis for a new theory. No actually I wrote that because I was told SR needed to be disproved. Uh-oh, tinfoil hat time. But the square root idiocy is enough showing both SR & GR are blunders. Hey Phil, what's the distance between points (0,0) and (1,1) on a Cartesian plane? What's the formula? Simple Newtonian physics question for Phil: a body initially at rest is accelerated at a fixed rate of 10 m/s^2 for a distance of 150 meters. How long (in seconds) did it take the body to cover the distance? Show your work. |
#1327
|
|||
|
|||
Sam Wormley averages 19 posts per day, yet he's the 35th most watched.
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 05:39:54 +0000 (UTC),
lid wrote: Citing*Google Groups, Eric Gisse said Phil Bouchard made “ 3,000 posts in the 3 months ”. Right now, in Sci.Physics, last 12 days, considering no more than the 30 most-recent posts per “ nym ” ( i.e. person ), Phil Bouchard has the highest “ xRank ” ( i.e. he's the “ most watched ” ). xRank is like Google's pageRank, where each nym is a “ usenetPage ”. The higher a nym's xRank, the more likely you'll be replying to him. Advertizers would ( and do ) pay good money to bump up their pageRanks. Dorn•Strich nymShifted 9 times in just 12 days, so I combined his nyms into one, like this: { Dorn•Strich } The following list is from highest to lowest “ xRank ”, i.e. from “ most watched ” to least watched. 1. 15 ? 0 ?30 The 15 means Phil averaged about 15 posts per day. The “ ? 0 ” means he made no “ Replies ” to me. A “ Reply ” to me is a post with “ Jeff_Relf ” somewhere in the last 5 Message-IDs of one's “ References: ” line. The “ ?30 ” means he made at least 30 posts, the limit. 2. 22 ? 0 ?30 3. 5 ? 8 ?30 4. 2 ? 2 ?22 [Hammond] Geez.... I'm the "4th most watched"? There must be a hellava lot of silent lurkers reading me.... why don't any of them say anything for chrissakes? Maybe I should publish my book and let them pay to read me if they don't want to talk? =================================== HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god mirror site: http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com Casey Bennetto mp3 God=G_uv folk song: http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 ================================== |
#1328
|
|||
|
|||
Sam Wormley averages 19 posts per day, yet he's the 35th mos****ched.
On Apr 30, 9:01*am, George Hammond wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 05:39:54 +0000 (UTC), lid wrote: Citing*Google Groups, Eric Gisse said Phil Bouchard made “ 3,000 posts in the 3 months ”. Right now, in Sci.Physics, last 12 days, considering no more than the 30 most-recent posts per “ nym ” ( i.e. person ), Phil Bouchard has the highest “ xRank ” ( i.e. he's the “ most watched ” ). xRank is like Google's pageRank, where each nym is a “ usenetPage ”. The higher a nym's xRank, the more likely you'll be replying to him. Advertizers would ( and do ) pay good money to bump up their pageRanks. Dorn•Strich nymShifted 9 times in just 12 days, so I combined his nyms into one, like this: { Dorn•Strich * * * * strichninetyn...@gmail .com * * * * * *} The following list is from highest to lowest “ xRank ”, i.e. from “ most watched ” to least watched. *1. 15 ? 0 ?30 * * * *The 15 means Phil averaged about 15 posts per day. * * * *The “ ? 0 ” means he made no “ Replies ” to me. * * * *A “ Reply ” to me is a post with “ Jeff_Relf ” somewhere * * * *in the last 5 Message-IDs of one's “ References: ” line. * * * *The “ ?30 ” means he made at least 30 posts, the limit. *2. 22 ? 0 ?30 *3. *5 ? 8 ?30 *4. *2 ? 2 ?22 [Hammond] * *Geez.... I'm the "4th most watched"? *There must be a hellava lot of silent lurkers reading me.... why don't any of them say anything for chrissakes? *Maybe I should publish my book and let them pay to read me if they don't want to talk? =================================== * * *HAMMOND'S PROOF OF GOD WEBSITE *http://geocities.com/scientific_proof_of_god * *mirror site: *http://proof-of-god.freewebsitehosting.com * Casey Bennetto mp3 God=G_uv folk song:http://interrobang.jwgh.org/songs/hammond.mp3 ==================================- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - George, would you mind posting the complete Top 10 list |
#1329
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: doug wrote: [...] Everybody will agree on the cannonball experiment: http://www.fornux.com/personal/phili...annonballs.pdf Everyone agrees that phil has no clue about relativity. It is funny to see you make a fool of yourself and think you can use that as a basis for a new theory. No actually I wrote that because I was told SR needed to be disproved. So you think that lying about relativity constitutes a disproof? You really were asleep in all your classes. But the square root idiocy is enough showing both SR & GR are blunders. You cannot be this stupid and still be able to type. |
#1330
|
|||
|
|||
Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof
Phil Bouchard wrote: doug wrote: Yes, so you need a different fudge factor for every point in the universe like I told you. That means you do not have a theory. Having the fudge factor of the Milky Way allows us processing interstellar measurements for a long time. The fudge factor of Virgo handles in turn the Milky Way for a long time. No, it tries to cover up for your wrong theory. Having a fudge factor which is different for every point in space means you are wrong. If you are interested in precise gravitational lensing then I suggest you take universe atlas on one computer and do all the zooming you wanna do. Well, FR is wrong so the predictions will be wrong. What else do I need to tell you? Oh here's one more thing: "If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" -- Albert Einstein Phil knows no science or math so he tries the cowardly way out and spouts random, generally made up, quotes. [...] |
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 |