Finite Relativism Disproof

On Sep 3, 10:29*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

A theory does not earn recognition by virtue of its author being
unconvinced that it's wrong. This may be part of your problem.

It's unfortunate lies and plagiarism is an easier approach...

What lies?

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:

Tell me, Phil, how do you reconcile the differences between the
derivation of the Lorentz Transform and Wiki page you site? Are
you not curious? Can you do the derivation yourself? Do you have
the foggiest idea of what the Lorentz Transform is?

I am really disappointed in you!

I don't have time answering at this moment.

Your dozens of posts from today alone belie the truth of that statement.

Perhaps you'd be better suited with a different hobby, one that did not
require such...understanding?

PD wrote:
On Sep 3, 10:29 pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:

It's unfortunate lies and plagiarism is an easier approach...

What lies?

That GR wasn't plagiarized

Sam Wormley wrote:
Phil Bouchard wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
3. pg 14 (pages 1-12 appear to be missing). You state that the
Lorentz time transformation for an observer and a moving clock is

t_o = γ t_f

Should not that be

t_o = γ (t_f - x v/c^2)

where v is the velocity along the x-axis? Was not this discussed
in this forum some months ago?

Note that γ = 1/√(1-v^2/c^2)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation


Tell me, Phil, how do you reconcile the differences between the
derivation of the Lorentz Transform and Wiki page you site? Are
you not curious? Can you do the derivation yourself? Do you have
the foggiest idea of what the Lorentz Transform is?

I am really disappointed in you!

Ok, what are you talking about Sam? I never referred to:
t_o = γ (t_f - x v/c^2)

.... in any way.

doug wrote:

[...]

Yes, you do want to show your ignorance there as well.

Doug is convinced the gravitational potential inside the Earth is null.

eric gisse wrote:

Your dozens of posts from today alone belie the truth of that statement.

Perhaps you'd be better suited with a different hobby, one that did not
require such...understanding?

I do not require strong mental efforts answering Doug-the-savior. I
need to double check with Sam.

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

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

This is not true.

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





--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/

BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/publicationzone/
canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html

On Sep 4, 1:01*am, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:
On Sep 3, 10:29 pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:

It's unfortunate lies and plagiarism is an easier approach...

What lies?

That GR wasn't plagiarized

Science is always built incrementally on the work of others.
Newton's first law of motion belongs to Galileo, and his law of
gravity was built to satisfy Kepler's three laws.
Boldness in physics comes usually from taking an idea a little bit
further than what predecessors dared to do with the same idea, rather
than inventing something wholly new on a clean sheet of paper, and
this act sometimes results in the Nobel Prize. Just about every Nobel
Prize awarded comes from taking a pre-existing idea and carrying it
further than others.
I don't know where people get the idea this constitutes plagiarism.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


Well, phil, they both have been worked out for a long time.
You really should at least look at a book.


My curve fits neatly with the outside the sphere grav. potential.

Numerology does wonders. Your inside the sphere is wrong.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

PD wrote:


Why?


To cut spaghetti talks and make my point.

No, just to show phil's cowardice and inability
to support any of his wild claims.