Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:


The mathematics is not some theology, Phil, that you choose to believe
or not believe, but a tool that was re derived by Einstein in his 1905
paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies". Those ideas have been
refined and I believe that I have the form for relativistic momentum
correct:

p = gamma m_o v = m_o v / √(1-v^2/c^2)

which agrees with observations. The empirical data of observation and
experiment are the arbiters of "correctness" is science.

Your formula, does not agree with observation and experiment is wrong,
an therefore must be discarded. it is not a viable theory of physics.

You know, Phil, many of us are here to help him with physics concepts
and provide resources, but you have this "attitude" that you are more
knowledgeable than us. What kind of a stupid attitude is that. Are you
not interested in learning any physics in a physics newsgroup?


The particle accelerator is much more interesting than the GPS system
and I am definitely looking forward measuring the relative error implied
by the tools used. Since length contraction doesn't make any sense, and
mass increase blinds the momentum dilation caused by time dilation there
is no reason using Lorentz transformations.

So what you are saying is that you have no clue about the gps so you
want to hide somewhere else. Since you are an idiot, you can look
stupid in many areas. Phil, do you really think that your random
flailing around is going to do you any good?

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Peter Webb wrote:

Just to confirm.

That thought experiment involving the cannons.

Do you understand and agree with my explanation of what an observer
would "see"?

Do you now agree there is no paradox?


What you say contradicts was Albert Einstein said, and what I say
contradicts both of you and hence are paradoxical.

You have no reading ability. You are lying about what relativity
says to try to make yourself not look so stupid.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:


He is trying the PT Barnum (there is a fool born every minute) approach
by trying to sell (for $40 amazingly enough) a book about his fantasies.
He is completely lost and has no clue. But the people like him always
say "but it is not logical" or "it can't be that way" and then go on
to think they are more intelligent than real scientists. Phil is
really in the strich state where he is not interested in the truth
but only his delusions.


I don't believe I am more intelligent than anybody,

Well, you have demonstrated that.

but you guys ran out
of arguments to defend your GR.

There was nothing to defend against. You have been able to
show only hatred and jealousy. That is your problem and has
no effect on science.


This is what it comes down to and that
is what it is.

Yep, phil knows no science and refuses to learn.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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.

You are a long way from even knowing what relativity says. You should
be embarrassed to come here looking so stupid.

[...]

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.

You have not shown in blunders. You have not shown any disproved papers.
You have shown ignorance, hatred and jealousy.

Sam Wormley wrote:

In particle accelerators, length contraction and time dilation are not
all that interesting, but the mass increase and compensation for the
mass increase must be taken into account for the accelerator to even
work!

Once again, you are implying a mass increase because of the proportional
increase of the momentum. Time dilation of the particle is enough to
increase its momentum.

In the global positioning system, it's the time dilation that must be
accounted for in the design of GPS so that it can work accurately.

Obviously yes.

And length contraction--From the perspective of the muon there is NO
time dilation of the muon's clock, nor mass increase, but the muon does
see the distance to the Earth foreshortened.

According to SR the muon won't see any difference. According to FR the
muon will see itself traveling much faster than c, because of the
slowness of its perception and the absence of any length contraction
whatsoever.

One problem Einstein did in his assertions when designing SR is that he
kept referring to an observer sitting on a moving photon looking at
another photon having the same velocity. But if you change the velocity
vector of the observed photon by 180 deg, it will be seen as traveling
infinitely fast relative to the person sitting on the other photon.

Think about it seriously. Draw sketches and you'll see.

See: http://www.marts100.com/lencon.htm

This is the way nature behaves, Phil! We are here to point you to
credible
resources so you can learn about it.

My goal is not trying to prove Doug's in an absolute denial but I am
hoping I am clear enough in making my point.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Sam Wormley wrote:


In particle accelerators, length contraction and time dilation are not
all that interesting, but the mass increase and compensation for the
mass increase must be taken into account for the accelerator to even
work!


Once again, you are implying a mass increase because of the proportional
increase of the momentum. Time dilation of the particle is enough to
increase its momentum.

Once again, Sam is saying that the experiments agree with relativity
which means they disagree with FR.

In the global positioning system, it's the time dilation that must be
accounted for in the design of GPS so that it can work accurately.


Obviously yes.

You have no clue what is going on with gps. You have failed to even
attempt to calculate the corrections using your "theory".


And length contraction--From the perspective of the muon there is NO
time dilation of the muon's clock, nor mass increase, but the muon does
see the distance to the Earth foreshortened.


According to SR the muon won't see any difference. According to FR the
muon will see itself traveling much faster than c, because of the
slowness of its perception and the absence of any length contraction
whatsoever.

Well, no. You have no idea what that means in terms of existing
experimental results.

One problem Einstein did in his assertions when designing SR is that he
kept referring to an observer sitting on a moving photon looking at
another photon having the same velocity. But if you change the velocity
vector of the observed photon by 180 deg, it will be seen as traveling
infinitely fast relative to the person sitting on the other photon.

As if we needed it, here is another demonstration that phil has no
clue what relativity says.


Think about it seriously. Draw sketches and you'll see.

Or look at the comparison between relativity theory and
experiments.

See: http://www.marts100.com/lencon.htm

This is the way nature behaves, Phil! We are here to point you to
credible
resources so you can learn about it.


My goal is not trying to prove Doug's in an absolute denial but I am
hoping I am clear enough in making my point.

Your point is that you have no clue what relativity says so you are
flailing from a position of ignorance and have no chance of doing
anything useful. Phil has failed on everything he has tried on this
so far. Lots of unsupported claims but no proof.

"Phil Bouchard" wrote in message
...
Sam Wormley wrote:

In particle accelerators, length contraction and time dilation are not
all that interesting, but the mass increase and compensation for the
mass increase must be taken into account for the accelerator to even
work!

Once again, you are implying a mass increase because of the proportional
increase of the momentum. Time dilation of the particle is enough to
increase its momentum.


So you claim.

Now show us the equations so we can verify the conservation of momentum and
energy.

I still don't understand why you don't produce the equations used by FR to
convert between different intertial frames of reference - in GR this
produces SR, what does FR produce in this special case?



In the global positioning system, it's the time dilation that must be
accounted for in the design of GPS so that it can work accurately.

Obviously yes.

And length contraction--From the perspective of the muon there is NO
time dilation of the muon's clock, nor mass increase, but the muon does
see the distance to the Earth foreshortened.

According to SR the muon won't see any difference. According to FR the
muon will see itself traveling much faster than c, because of the slowness
of its perception and the absence of any length contraction whatsoever.


What is the set of equations which transform between two intertial frames of
reference in FR, so we can test them for ourselves?




One problem Einstein did in his assertions when designing SR is that he
kept referring to an observer sitting on a moving photon looking at
another photon having the same velocity.

Cite.

I can never recall Einstein using this thought experiment even once, but if
he "kept doing it" I must have missed something.

Can you provide the words he used and what he said about it?


But if you change the velocity vector of the observed photon by 180 deg,
it will be seen as traveling infinitely fast relative to the person
sitting on the other photon.

Think about it seriously. Draw sketches and you'll see.


Lets start off with what Einstein actually said, if that is what you are
arguing against.

What did he say exactly that about this thought experiment of an observer
siting on a moving photon and looking at another photon with the same
velocity.



See: http://www.marts100.com/lencon.htm

This is the way nature behaves, Phil! We are here to point you to
credible
resources so you can learn about it.

My goal is not trying to prove Doug's in an absolute denial but I am
hoping I am clear enough in making my point.


1. Post your equations for FR, or admit you have none.

2. Find a source for what you claimed Einstein said above, or explain why
you lied.

3. Explain how FR produces a different solution to the cannonball thought
experiment than SR, using the equations of motion of SR.

Peter Webb wrote:

[...]

1. Post your equations for FR, or admit you have none.

Once again time dilation:
t_f = t_o / (1 / v^2/c^2)

Relative gravitational time dilation:
t_f = r_2^2 / r_1^2 * t_o

The time a light ray takes to travel between 2 stars or 2 galaxies is:
t_f =
(i^2*j^2*(n^2*x^3-j*n^2*x^2-i*n^2*x^2+i*j*n^2*x-2*k^2*m^2*x+j*k^2*m^2+i*k^2*m^2))
/ ((i^2*j^2*n^2+j^2*k^2*m^2+i^2*k^2*m^2)*v*(x-i)*(x-j))

2. Find a source for what you claimed Einstein said above, or explain
why you lied.

Look at the last example of the following page:
http://www.einsteinathome.org/gwaves...t/special.html

3. Explain how FR produces a different solution to the cannonball
thought experiment than SR, using the equations of motion of SR.

According to "The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein, the
length of the ball is given by:
sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

In the cannonball example, I am basically asking the question: Is the
length contraction affecting the balls individually or altogether with
the rope?

What FR says is not only there is no length contraction but *both* SR
postulates are actually *wrong*. Firstly the speed of light will be
observed differently depending on its direction relative to an observer
traveling at c - epsilon. Secondly the frames of reference cannot be
inertial because what you'll see will be very different according to
your speed. Even you admitted the ropes must break in the example, but
an observer sitting on one moving bullet shouldn't see anything wrong
if the frames of reference are inertial.

The Michelson-Morley experiment "proved" the absence of aether to some
but what it really did is proved "aether" is subject to a spinning frame
of reference. If you do a similar experiment using a high precision
frequency meter in a satellite, you will get different results.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Once again time dilation:
t_f = t_o / (1 / v^2/c^2)

I meant:
t_f = t_o / (1 - v^2/c^2)

[...]

On Mar 29, 6:30 pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Phil Bouchard wrote:

Once again time dilation:
t_f = t_o / (1 / v^2/c^2)

I meant:
t_f = t_o / (1 - v^2/c^2)

[...]



Still the same old fart imbecile :-)