Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

doug wrote:

So phil just starts out with his conclusions, even though they
are wrong. Your theory fails completely in the absence of gravity.

The absence of gravity is where GR actually breaks apart.

You keep referring to the nonsense you said about the cannonballs.
What you said has nothing to do with relativity. It has to do with
what you hoped relativity was saying so you could make claims that
it was wrong. Far smarter and harder working people than you have
looked at all these things carefully over the last century.
Your idea about the cannonballs is so awful, it does even rate high
enough to be wrong.

Since whatever you say is wrong given your grade in the exam, it makes
the example perfectly valid. You can't release a wrong theory and later
on patch it by redefining "paradox" and "maths".

Well phil, you were given a list of references which you did
not understand. And, it is your responsibility to try to act
like an adult and get off your butt and do some work. You might
also try google. Some of the cs types can tell you about it.

All of your papers are written by cranks and therefore your library
cannot be relied on.

Repeating your jealousy and hatred will not change the century of
experimental evidence for relativity.

Have you given up on the gps yet? You have failed on everything else.

You tend dismissing all blunders Einstein wrote and move on to your GPS
measurements, the only place where GR can be precise since it starts
breaking outside the solar system. Assumptions is not science.

Have a good Alice in Wonderland day.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

Horrible. You haven't defined what "gravity flux" is.
You haven't defined a coordinate system (or stated if one
is required or not), or even how positions and velocities
are to be measured. You haven't provided a mathematical
relationship between any of the items.

[snip remainder of word sald / Star Trek Technobabble type
nonsense]

You would do well to take a look at how Einstein layed
out his groundwork and postulates when he developed his
theories. Unlike you, he knew what he was doing.

Einstein could not have known what he was doing since SR is wrong and
its mathematical representation was written by Mileva Maric.

Your petty jealousies and repetition of specious rumors
are not an argument.


I also assume a minimum of intelligence since defining a coordinate
system and the relation between velocities can be deducted easily. If
you know what "gravity field" means then you should know what "gravity
flux" relates to. It is a term commonly used:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...all~order=page

Phil does not understand the need to define *explicitly* the
background upon which a theory is to be constructed.

Phil does not understand that building a theory upon
*assumed* components taken ad-hoc from other theories is
bogus, particularly if he begins with the premise that the
other theories are wrong.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


FR postulates:

· The incident gravity flux crossing a body at high velocities
relative to its source induces dilation of time


Phil does not realize that relativity works in the absence of
gravity. Thus his first postulate is wrong.


Since relativity is wrong, I don't derive from its postulates.

So phil just starts out with his conclusions, even though they
are wrong. Your theory fails completely in the absence of gravity.

The
second postulate of SR being itself wrong since it contradicts length
contraction evoked by SR itself as shown by the cannonball example.

You keep referring to the nonsense you said about the cannonballs.
What you said has nothing to do with relativity. It has to do with
what you hoped relativity was saying so you could make claims that
it was wrong. Far smarter and harder working people than you have
looked at all these things carefully over the last century.
Your idea about the cannonballs is so awful, it does even rate high
enough to be wrong.

In
fact either one of the two is wrong: SR's 2nd postulate or length
contraction.

Well, that is wrong and an unsupported assertion even if it were
not nonsense.

[...]

Well, a century of successful experimental verification is not quite
what the world considers being disproven by evidence.


I'm sure there is experimental corrections to your century of
predictions. Since Doug keeps it secret,

Well phil, you were given a list of references which you did
not understand. And, it is your responsibility to try to act
like an adult and get off your butt and do some work. You might
also try google. Some of the cs types can tell you about it.


we have to listen to your
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 predictions.


Repeating your jealousy and hatred will not change the century of
experimental evidence for relativity.

Have you given up on the gps yet? You have failed on everything else.


[...]

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Greg Neill wrote:


Horrible. You haven't defined what "gravity flux" is.
You haven't defined a coordinate system (or stated if one
is required or not), or even how positions and velocities
are to be measured. You haven't provided a mathematical
relationship between any of the items.

[snip remainder of word sald / Star Trek Technobabble type
nonsense]

You would do well to take a look at how Einstein layed
out his groundwork and postulates when he developed his
theories. Unlike you, he knew what he was doing.


Einstein could not have known what he was doing since SR is wrong

Here is where your lack of knowledge of science comes in. You do
not like relativity but you have no clue what it actually is.
Do you have any idea of the formalisms behind it? Hint: it was
not covered in your comic book.


and
its mathematical representation was written by Mileva Maric.

I also assume a minimum of intelligence since defining a coordinate
system and the relation between velocities can be deducted easily.

So you are just making a large number of unsupported assertions to
cut down on the work. How did that work for you in math classes
where you told the prof that you did not do the details of the
proof since the question seemed obvious to you? We know you
are not a mathematician as they are the most anal of all people
when they start to do proofs.


If
you know what "gravity field" means then you should know what "gravity
flux" relates to. It is a term commonly used:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...all~order=page


So you have no idea how to define it. Do you know what it means
in relativity?

On Mar 28, 12:10*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Peter Webb wrote:

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.

Doug failed defending singularities, wormholes, time travel in the past,
length contraction and infinite masses that can never be observed,
velocity cap of 3e8 m/s and consequently an infinite amount of universes
and dark matter.

Like the typical crank, Phil has developed his own little catchphrase
& strawman for attacking relativity.


I think Doug should move on to aus.politics.

On Mar 28, 1:56*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:

FR postulates:

· The incident gravity flux crossing a body at high velocities
relative to its source induces dilation of time

Phil does not realize that relativity works in the absence of
gravity. Thus his first postulate is wrong.

Since relativity is wrong, I don't derive from its postulates. *The
second postulate of SR being itself wrong since it contradicts length
contraction evoked by SR itself as shown by the cannonball example. *In
fact either one of the two is wrong: SR's 2nd postulate or length
contraction.

Stupid little man. Special relativity is the Lorentz group SO(3,1) -
it is no more self-contradictory than complex analysis.


[...]

Well, a century of successful experimental verification is not quite
what the world considers being disproven by evidence.

I'm sure there is experimental corrections to your century of
predictions. *Since Doug keeps it secret, we have to listen to your
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 predictions.

There's the catchphrase again!


[...]

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


So phil just starts out with his conclusions, even though they
are wrong. Your theory fails completely in the absence of gravity.


The absence of gravity is where GR actually breaks apart.

You keep amazing me with your ignorance. Do you have any clue
at all about relativity?

You keep referring to the nonsense you said about the cannonballs.
What you said has nothing to do with relativity. It has to do with
what you hoped relativity was saying so you could make claims that
it was wrong. Far smarter and harder working people than you have
looked at all these things carefully over the last century.
Your idea about the cannonballs is so awful, it does even rate high
enough to be wrong.


Since whatever you say is wrong given your grade in the exam, it makes
the example perfectly valid.

Phil, it is ok to have your delusions of competence, but when
you deny facts, it does not reflect well on your mental state.
Your cannonball example was not related to anything that
relativity says. If you were to read, you would see that.

You can't release a wrong theory and later
on patch it by redefining "paradox" and "maths".

So your theory is completely dead.

Well phil, you were given a list of references which you did
not understand. And, it is your responsibility to try to act
like an adult and get off your butt and do some work. You might
also try google. Some of the cs types can tell you about it.


All of your papers are written by cranks and therefore your library
cannot be relied on.

This is the last gasp of the desperate crank. Phil wants to believe
that the last century has had no scientists in it and now phil,
the saviour comes along. Most of the cranks get to this stage
at some point. It does not improve their understanding of science
at all.

Repeating your jealousy and hatred will not change the century of
experimental evidence for relativity.

Have you given up on the gps yet? You have failed on everything else.


You tend dismissing all blunders Einstein wrote

You have not found any so far.

and move on to your GPS
measurements,

You have no clue what these are aboute so you run and hide.

the only place where GR can be precise since it starts
breaking outside the solar system. Assumptions is not science.

And that is what you are doing. You are making totally unwarranted
assumptions. Look, since your "theory" is wrong in our neighborhood,
it will not magically be correct somewhere else.

Have a good Alice in Wonderland day.

On Mar 28, 5:21*pm, doug wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 28, 1:56 pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

FR postulates:

· The incident gravity flux crossing a body at high velocities
relative to its source induces dilation of time

Phil does not realize that relativity works in the absence of
gravity. Thus his first postulate is wrong.

Since relativity is wrong, I don't derive from its postulates. *The
second postulate of SR being itself wrong since it contradicts length
contraction evoked by SR itself as shown by the cannonball example. *In
fact either one of the two is wrong: SR's 2nd postulate or length
contraction.

Stupid little man. Special relativity is the Lorentz group SO(3,1) -
it is no more self-contradictory than complex analysis.

You forget phil is a cs guy. They have far less math than a
physics undergraduate. Those big words you used will scare him.
Besides it clashes with what he wants the universe to be.

I didn't forget - I just don't care. If he wants to play in the deep
end of the pool, he better learn to swim.

I'm more curious to know how long it will take for this tool to
realize that he's uneducated and out of his depth.

[...]

Eric Gisse wrote:

On Mar 28, 1:56 pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


FR postulates:

· The incident gravity flux crossing a body at high velocities
relative to its source induces dilation of time

Phil does not realize that relativity works in the absence of
gravity. Thus his first postulate is wrong.

Since relativity is wrong, I don't derive from its postulates. The
second postulate of SR being itself wrong since it contradicts length
contraction evoked by SR itself as shown by the cannonball example. In
fact either one of the two is wrong: SR's 2nd postulate or length
contraction.


Stupid little man. Special relativity is the Lorentz group SO(3,1) -
it is no more self-contradictory than complex analysis.

You forget phil is a cs guy. They have far less math than a
physics undergraduate. Those big words you used will scare him.
Besides it clashes with what he wants the universe to be.

[...]


Well, a century of successful experimental verification is not quite
what the world considers being disproven by evidence.

I'm sure there is experimental corrections to your century of
predictions. Since Doug keeps it secret, we have to listen to your
singularities, natural wormholes, length contraction, infinite masses,
velocity cap of 3e8 m/s,

Phil seems to really dislike this feature of the universe.
He would like a new universe that meets his prejudices.

the Hubble's sphere problem, and consequently
an infinite amount of universes and dark matter predictions.


There's the catchphrase again!

Well, he has to hope for some reason to get people to accept his
nonsense. I think he had been watching koobee. Next he will learn
the shrug which koobee uses when he knows he is wrong and hopes
no one notices.


[...]

doug wrote:

Stupid little man. Special relativity is the Lorentz group SO(3,1) -
it is no more self-contradictory than complex analysis.

You forget phil is a cs guy. They have far less math than a
physics undergraduate. Those big words you used will scare him.
Besides it clashes with what he wants the universe to be.

Mr. Lorentz was a physicist. In the real world you can't simply project
2d coordinates into 1d and then conclude length must contract when
achieving high speeds. If the length contraction isn't real then don't
say length contracts as seen from an observer standing on the ground.

[...]

Well, he has to hope for some reason to get people to accept his
nonsense. I think he had been watching koobee. Next he will learn
the shrug which koobee uses when he knows he is wrong and hopes
no one notices.

I am pointing out the importance of these blunders you seem to silently
dismiss all the time, just like Einstein did with all his disproved
papers. Those aren't acceptable in the real world.