Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Peter Webb wrote:


Just returning to topic here, are you OK about my explanation of what
happens in your thought experiment? Still see any paradox?


Look at page 3 of the following preview. According to Albert Einstein,
the following should occur:
https://www.createspace.com/pub/comm...8&rewrite=true

Guess again. Your lack of knowledge is showing.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


Eric, now phil will come back and complain that there is no spreadsheet
there. You notice also that phil cannot predict anything. I guess he
learned from his wrong guesses that he better have the correct answer
before he starts to "calculate" his. We also notice that phil has
had no clue about the gps before this point and that helps verify how
lazy he has been about this whole dream of his.


Where's the spreadsheet?

Yes, there is science there and not a spreadsheet. I know you do not
understand science or math. All you have to do is read the article.

FR disproves singularities, natural wormholes, length contraction,
infinite masses, velocity cap of 3e8 m/s, the Hubble's sphere problem,
and consequently an infinite amount of universes and dark matter. It is
a mathematical representation and thus cannot be wrong.

That is a very stupid statement. The world decides if your
representation is correct. It makes wrong predictions to it
is wrong. Remember GIGO.

You are missing the point of science theory validation. It is
like a validation set in programming. Your new program must
reproduce the same results as the old version given the
same data. Your "theory" gives wrong answers to experiments
that have already been doen. Therefore it is wrong whether
you want to believe it or not. Your delusions and dreams do
not change that.


GPS seem to be the only valid verification of yours, so I'll read your
paper and the GPS system that can "save your life".

No, it is one of the easiest for people to observe. The fact that
you are unaware of it shows your level of ignorance. If you had
a theory, it should be one of the first things you test it on
rather than making wild unsupported guesses about other things.


So it sounds like Doug doesn't even know LaTeX? I'm not going to
comment on this one...

Maybe you are not aware of the difference between LyX and LaTex.

doug wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:

Phil Bouchard wrote:


FR disproves singularities, natural wormholes, length contraction,
infinite masses, velocity cap of 3e8 m/s, the Hubble's sphere problem,
and consequently an infinite amount of universes and dark matter. It
is a mathematical representation and thus cannot be wrong.

GPS seem to be the only valid verification of yours, so I'll read your
paper and the GPS system that can "save your life".



Clearly Phil and his "FR" are wrong, contradicted by observation.

Phil has put himself into a difficult spot. He claims his theory is
a mathematical representation and thus cannot be wrong. But Einstein's
work is also a mathematical representation and thus, by Phil's own
argument, cannot be wrong. Since the two do not agree, Phil will be
left spinning in circles saying "but it cannot be wrong".

Ah, but Phil also claims that his FR gives identical results
to GR. Except when it doesn't. Whatever that means. Seems
to have something to do with where the events occur, or maybe
where the calculation is done, or perhaps it's the phase of the
Moon.

Phil also claims that GR is wrong because it restricts
information transfer time to light speed, which apparently
*must* be wrong because Phil just doesn't like that. He also
thinks GR is wrong because the equations would allow wormholes
to exist (he never discusses the added assumptions and
conditions that would have to be met for this to be so).
Strangely, and quite contradictorily, he claims that his own
theory is superior because it allows wormholes. Phil also
thinks that SR somehow generates infinite masses and actual
paradoxes.

All told it's all comparatively tame crank behavior. Phil will
have to step up his game to remain interesting/amusing.

Sam Wormley wrote:

Phil Bouchard wrote:


FR disproves singularities, natural wormholes, length contraction,
infinite masses, velocity cap of 3e8 m/s, the Hubble's sphere problem,
and consequently an infinite amount of universes and dark matter. It
is a mathematical representation and thus cannot be wrong.

GPS seem to be the only valid verification of yours, so I'll read your
paper and the GPS system that can "save your life".



Clearly Phil and his "FR" are wrong, contradicted by observation.

Phil has put himself into a difficult spot. He claims his theory is
a mathematical representation and thus cannot be wrong. But Einstein's
work is also a mathematical representation and thus, by Phil's own
argument, cannot be wrong. Since the two do not agree, Phil will be
left spinning in circles saying "but it cannot be wrong".

On Mar 26, 9:50*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:

Eric, now phil will come back and complain that there is no spreadsheet
there. *You notice also that phil cannot predict anything. I guess he
learned from his wrong guesses that he better have the correct answer
before he starts to "calculate" his. *We also notice that phil has
had no clue about the gps before this point and that helps verify how
lazy he has been about this whole dream of his.

Where's the spreadsheet?

There is no spreadsheet.


FR disproves singularities, natural wormholes, length contraction,
infinite masses, velocity cap of 3e8 m/s, the Hubble's sphere problem,
and consequently an infinite amount of universes and dark matter. *It is
a mathematical representation and thus cannot be wrong.

Since "FR" seems to be based on the fact you find it hard to plot
square roots, I highly doubt you can disprove anythin with it.

General Relativity is a mathematical representation too. G_uv = 8piG/
c^4 T_uv - how can that be wrong?


GPS seem to be the only valid verification of yours, so I'll read your
paper and the GPS system that can "save your life".

It "seem" [sic] to be the only "valid" verification because you are
too stupid to do a literature search. Go forth and look at PSR
1913+16.


So it sounds like Doug doesn't even know LaTeX? *I'm not going to
comment on this one...

LyX != LaTeX, dip****. Do you know either? No. You know spreadsheets,
and even that is being generous.

Greg Neill wrote:

doug wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:


Phil Bouchard wrote:


FR disproves singularities, natural wormholes, length contraction,
infinite masses, velocity cap of 3e8 m/s, the Hubble's sphere problem,
and consequently an infinite amount of universes and dark matter. It
is a mathematical representation and thus cannot be wrong.

GPS seem to be the only valid verification of yours, so I'll read your
paper and the GPS system that can "save your life".



Clearly Phil and his "FR" are wrong, contradicted by observation.

Phil has put himself into a difficult spot. He claims his theory is
a mathematical representation and thus cannot be wrong. But Einstein's
work is also a mathematical representation and thus, by Phil's own
argument, cannot be wrong. Since the two do not agree, Phil will be
left spinning in circles saying "but it cannot be wrong".


Ah, but Phil also claims that his FR gives identical results
to GR. Except when it doesn't. Whatever that means. Seems
to have something to do with where the events occur, or maybe
where the calculation is done, or perhaps it's the phase of the
Moon.

Phil also claims that GR is wrong because it restricts
information transfer time to light speed, which apparently
*must* be wrong because Phil just doesn't like that. He also
thinks GR is wrong because the equations would allow wormholes
to exist (he never discusses the added assumptions and
conditions that would have to be met for this to be so).
Strangely, and quite contradictorily, he claims that his own
theory is superior because it allows wormholes. Phil also
thinks that SR somehow generates infinite masses and actual
paradoxes.

All told it's all comparatively tame crank behavior. Phil will
have to step up his game to remain interesting/amusing.

That is true. It seems that all the cranks go through the same
progression of coming here thinking they have done something
great and then getting increasingly nasty as they are shown to
be wrong. The ones that hang around get very repetitive like
Ken "ignorant runt of the SRians" Seto and Henri "all experiments
are lies and only my software is correct" Wilson and David
"my iq is so high I must be right" strich etc.

We need some new cranks to play with.

"doug" wrote in message
et...


Greg Neill wrote:

doug wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:


Phil Bouchard wrote:


FR disproves singularities, natural wormholes, length contraction,
infinite masses, velocity cap of 3e8 m/s, the Hubble's sphere problem,
and consequently an infinite amount of universes and dark matter. It
is a mathematical representation and thus cannot be wrong.

GPS seem to be the only valid verification of yours, so I'll read your
paper and the GPS system that can "save your life".



Clearly Phil and his "FR" are wrong, contradicted by observation.

Phil has put himself into a difficult spot. He claims his theory is
a mathematical representation and thus cannot be wrong. But Einstein's
work is also a mathematical representation and thus, by Phil's own
argument, cannot be wrong. Since the two do not agree, Phil will be
left spinning in circles saying "but it cannot be wrong".


Ah, but Phil also claims that his FR gives identical results
to GR. Except when it doesn't. Whatever that means. Seems
to have something to do with where the events occur, or maybe
where the calculation is done, or perhaps it's the phase of the
Moon.

Phil also claims that GR is wrong because it restricts
information transfer time to light speed, which apparently
*must* be wrong because Phil just doesn't like that. He also
thinks GR is wrong because the equations would allow wormholes
to exist (he never discusses the added assumptions and
conditions that would have to be met for this to be so).
Strangely, and quite contradictorily, he claims that his own
theory is superior because it allows wormholes. Phil also
thinks that SR somehow generates infinite masses and actual
paradoxes.

All told it's all comparatively tame crank behavior. Phil will
have to step up his game to remain interesting/amusing.

That is true. It seems that all the cranks go through the same
progression of coming here thinking they have done something
great and then getting increasingly nasty as they are shown to
be wrong. The ones that hang around get very repetitive like
Ken "ignorant runt of the SRians" Seto and Henri "all experiments
are lies and only my software is correct" Wilson and David
"my iq is so high I must be right" strich etc.

We need some new cranks to play with.


Well, if you really feel that way, come on over to aus.politics and meet
some people who can "prove" the Holocaust never occurred, or sci.math to
meet some people who know how to form a bijection between N and R "proving"
Cantor was wrong.

Eric Gisse wrote:

[...]

General Relativity is a mathematical representation too. G_uv = 8piG/
c^4 T_uv - how can that be wrong?

Because it breaks outside the galaxy.

It "seem" [sic] to be the only "valid" verification because you are
too stupid to do a literature search. Go forth and look at PSR
1913+16.

What's the deal Eric? I come here and not only I tell you, but I prove
SR is erroneous making your thesis also wrong. I can understand you're
mad but maybe I'm helping you indirectly.

[...]

Peter Webb wrote:


"doug" wrote in message
et...



Greg Neill wrote:

doug wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:


Phil Bouchard wrote:


FR disproves singularities, natural wormholes, length contraction,
infinite masses, velocity cap of 3e8 m/s, the Hubble's sphere
problem,
and consequently an infinite amount of universes and dark matter. It
is a mathematical representation and thus cannot be wrong.

GPS seem to be the only valid verification of yours, so I'll read
your
paper and the GPS system that can "save your life".



Clearly Phil and his "FR" are wrong, contradicted by observation.


Phil has put himself into a difficult spot. He claims his theory is
a mathematical representation and thus cannot be wrong. But Einstein's
work is also a mathematical representation and thus, by Phil's own
argument, cannot be wrong. Since the two do not agree, Phil will be
left spinning in circles saying "but it cannot be wrong".



Ah, but Phil also claims that his FR gives identical results
to GR. Except when it doesn't. Whatever that means. Seems
to have something to do with where the events occur, or maybe
where the calculation is done, or perhaps it's the phase of the
Moon.

Phil also claims that GR is wrong because it restricts
information transfer time to light speed, which apparently
*must* be wrong because Phil just doesn't like that. He also
thinks GR is wrong because the equations would allow wormholes
to exist (he never discusses the added assumptions and
conditions that would have to be met for this to be so).
Strangely, and quite contradictorily, he claims that his own
theory is superior because it allows wormholes. Phil also
thinks that SR somehow generates infinite masses and actual
paradoxes.

All told it's all comparatively tame crank behavior. Phil will
have to step up his game to remain interesting/amusing.


That is true. It seems that all the cranks go through the same
progression of coming here thinking they have done something
great and then getting increasingly nasty as they are shown to
be wrong. The ones that hang around get very repetitive like
Ken "ignorant runt of the SRians" Seto and Henri "all experiments
are lies and only my software is correct" Wilson and David
"my iq is so high I must be right" strich etc.

We need some new cranks to play with.


Well, if you really feel that way, come on over to aus.politics and meet
some people who can "prove" the Holocaust never occurred, or sci.math to
meet some people who know how to form a bijection between N and R
"proving" Cantor was wrong.

What, you mean that strich has not proved all of them to be wrong
including Archimedes?

"Phil Bouchard" wrote in message
...
Eric Gisse wrote:

[...]

General Relativity is a mathematical representation too. G_uv = 8piG/
c^4 T_uv - how can that be wrong?

Because it breaks outside the galaxy.

It "seem" [sic] to be the only "valid" verification because you are
too stupid to do a literature search. Go forth and look at PSR
1913+16.

What's the deal Eric? I come here and not only I tell you, but I prove SR
is erroneous making your thesis also wrong. I can understand you're mad
but maybe I'm helping you indirectly.

[...]

Sorry, I must have missed your proof that SR is wrong.

Considering that particle accelerators demonstrably do work, and their
entire design is based upon what happens when particles are accelerated to
close to the speed of light, you have a lot of explaining to do.