Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

On Mar 30, 4:50*pm, bobd wrote:
On Mar 31, 10:27*am, PD wrote:



On Mar 30, 3:23*pm, bobd wrote:

Einstein's proposal to do away with the aether is chiefly remarkable
for the lack of understanding of the physical universe which it
displays. Sir Issac Newton himself denounced those who believed action
could accur across empty space as not having a competent faculty of
thinking in philosophical matters. In his letter to Bently 1692-3 Feb
25 he says:

That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so
that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their
action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so
great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical
matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.
Gravity must be caused by by an agent acting constantly according to
certain laws.

Dr Silberstein, who had made a careful study of Einstein's theory and
thus pointed out the bizarre conclusions drawn by some pure
mathematicians who are prone to forget that the deflections of
starlight near the sun is a purely physical problem as the refraction
of light in the earth's atmosphere. The sun's deflection of light is
similar to refraction, but very minute - half of it being 0.875", as
against 2000 in earth's atmosphere, which is about 2300 times
smaller.

According to the report of observers of the eclipse of 1919, this
miunte deflection disappears, when the sun moves out of the path of
the light from the stars lying behind it, such a temporary effect
cannot properly be attributed to a warp of space; and one cannot
reflect how fortunate it is that the physical theory of astronomical
refraction was perfected by Newton, Laplace and Bessel before such
confusing terms as fourth dimension space time manifolds were
introduced into science.

It cannot be held that Einstein's theory enlightens us on the motion
of mercury's perihelion, because at least half a dozen explanations,
some of them approved by Newton, Hall, Newcomb,and Seeliger, are
already known.

Nor can it be believed that the Global positioning system works purely
based on the space time warp when it can much easily and less
mystically be explained by the dragging of the universal medium around
the earth as proven by the esteemed french scientist Sagnac and
constantly monitored by the huge Ring Lazer located in underground
caverns in my home town. Those who believe that this is a space time
warp need to have a look into practical thinking and stay away from
star trek.

But these of course will never even be looked at by mainstream science
because it would go against the faith in your religon you call
science. Every single scientific report that contradicts Einstein is
buried in haste or manipulated around his theory. Just look at the
faster than light experiment. FIrst of all it was claimed that it
simply couldn't happen and when they realised that it was actually
happening and couldn't be denied it was put down to it arriving before
it was sent or non physical realities. This is stupid and I expect
more from the esteemed men in science as some are of brilliant mind
but have been brainwashed by space time warps. Wake up people!!!

LeSage theory was actually fairly well developed, to the point where
it made a number of testable experimental predictions. Those
experimental observations were made and the model ruled out. This is
*precisely* the way science should work, and did work.

PD

All i'm talking about is the dragging of the aether around the earth
which was proven. Many theories have there good points but fail at
certain other things.

Sorry, a theory is tested on the *body* of evidence. It is not upheld
because it satisfies one experimental result when it doesn't satisfy
another experimental result.

PD

On Mar 30, 4:57*pm, bobd wrote:
Why are you relativists on here?? This is a new theory web group???

That's debatable. Note the cross-posting. The group
alt.sci.physics.new-theories is about new theories, but the group
sci.physics.relativity is about relativity, which is not new at all.

If
anything comes up that even remotely contradicts current mainstream
science, you start to argue. This is not a fair revue of theories.

A "theory" is not a theory until it can make testable predictions of
measurable quantities, and in fact will not be a competitive theory
unless it makes predictions that are *distinguishable* from other
models.

Oh
by the way Phill, no offense but no one is going to buy your theory,
you have to give it away and if it's any good it will be either buried
if it contradicts the accepted laws or looked at. But to be honest
from what you have stated it's not too great. Don't quit your day job
just yet.

bobd wrote:

On Mar 31, 10:40 am, doug wrote:

bobd wrote:

Einstein's proposal to do away with the aether is chiefly remarkable
for the lack of understanding of the physical universe which it
displays. Sir Issac Newton himself denounced those who believed action
could accur across empty space as not having a competent faculty of
thinking in philosophical matters. In his letter to Bently 1692-3 Feb
25 he says:

That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so
that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their
action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so
great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical
matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.

The universe does not care what is pleasing to you. You are doing
philosophy, not science. Philosophy has nothing to do with
science. It is what you do when you cannot do science.




Philosophy has everything to do with science hence the term natural
philosophy. Which was the old name for physics. That it the chief aim
of men in science, to find out how the universe works, not just the
equations for it. Ask any esteemed, dedicated scientist and they will
tell you they long to find out how the universe works. Look at
Einstein not only did he state the maths but also the supposed reason
(Bending of space time) If he was into "science" as you say it is then
he would have not givern the bending of space time theory and Newton's
equations would be all that was needed.


Science is the "what", philosophy is the "why". The "why" does not
matter when science is done. Gettig to worried about "why" gets
people to thinking it matters and then they wander off uselessly
into philosophy. Look at it this way, science is doing the work,
philosophy is having a few beers and talking about doing science.

You comment about Einstein is just silly. Newton give the wrong
"what".



Gravity must be caused by by an agent acting constantly according to
certain laws.

Dr Silberstein, who had made a careful study of Einstein's theory and
thus pointed out the bizarre conclusions drawn by some pure
mathematicians who are prone to forget that the deflections of
starlight near the sun is a purely physical problem as the refraction
of light in the earth's atmosphere. The sun's deflection of light is
similar to refraction, but very minute - half of it being 0.875", as
against 2000 in earth's atmosphere, which is about 2300 times
smaller.

According to the report of observers of the eclipse of 1919, this
miunte deflection disappears, when the sun moves out of the path of
the light from the stars lying behind it, such a temporary effect
cannot properly be attributed to a warp of space; and one cannot
reflect how fortunate it is that the physical theory of astronomical
refraction was perfected by Newton, Laplace and Bessel before such
confusing terms as fourth dimension space time manifolds were
introduced into science.

It cannot be held that Einstein's theory enlightens us on the motion
of mercury's perihelion, because at least half a dozen explanations,
some of them approved by Newton, Hall, Newcomb,and Seeliger, are
already known.

Well, relativity is the one that gets it right. There is also a
century of other experimental verification of relativity.


Read these hypothesis put forward some of them get it right to.

At this point, there are no other theories that get it all right
with the century of experimental testing.





Nor can it be believed that the Global positioning system works purely
based on the space time warp when it can much easily and less
mystically be explained by the dragging of the universal medium around
the earth as proven by the esteemed french scientist Sagnac and
constantly monitored by the huge Ring Lazer located in underground
caverns in my home town. Those who believe that this is a space time
warp need to have a look into practical thinking and stay away from
star trek.

Your ignorance is not a scientific argument. Sagnac has nothing to
do with the gps. You are the one dreaming and hoping your delusions
will become real.



No shiit sherlock. But the sagnac effect is related to GPS, if you
imagine the aether to be dragged around the earth as the ring lazers
prove. The only reason the aether was disputed in the first place was
because they could not find the "wind" of it that was meant to travel
through the earth. When sagnac discovered that it was in fact being
dragged around the earth it was too late as Einstein's theory had
crept in and taken over like the plague.

Now see here is one of your problems with following philosophy. You
do not like relativity so you let your hatred get in the way and
come up with the phrases above. Your science is wrong too.



But these of course will never even be looked at by mainstream science
because it would go against the faith in your religon you call
science. Every single scientific report that contradicts Einstein is
buried in haste or manipulated around his theory.

Since there is a century of experimental support for relativity,
your paranoia looks pretty stupid.

Just look at the


faster than light experiment. FIrst of all it was claimed that it
simply couldn't happen and when they realised that it was actually
happening and couldn't be denied it was put down to it arriving before
it was sent or non physical realities.

There have been no demonstrations of this. There are various usenet
cranks claiming it. If you have a reference to science, show it.
Otherwise you are lying.


http://www.livescience.com/technolog...low_light.html
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/000530b.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/781199.stm

the part that states "In the other experiment, a pulse of light that
enters a transparent chamber filled with caesium gas reaches speeds
300 times the normal speed of light.

The standard mistake here is the uneducated are not aware of the
difference between phase velocity and group velocity.

According to the researchers, the main part of the light pulse leaves
the far side of the chamber even before it enters at the near side! "

Of course it's hotly disputed because it would put an end to the
religeon of relativity.


This is stupid and I expect


more from the esteemed men in science as some are of brilliant mind
but have been brainwashed by space time warps. Wake up people!!!

Well, you have shown no problems with relativity. You have shown you
do not like it and do not understand it but that has no effect on
the validity of it.


You are partly right that I have shown no errors, only paradoxs

Since there are no paradoxes and you admit there are no errors, you
are back to the philosophy of not liking relativity.

(Decreasing speed of pioneer space craft, increased unexplained speed
when slingshotting.) I am saying that there is a much simpler way of
understanding the universe than what is givern at the moment. I am
also stating that if people had accepted the aether long ago then man
would have almost worked worked out the universe long ago.

Here you are lost in a delusional philosophy. Since relativity is so
well supported by experiments, any replacement theory must look just
like it in its domain of applicability. It will have all the things
that you do not like. It is better to take the rules of the universe
as being the way they are, not the way you would like them.

There is no proof that the aether does not exhist. The M-M experiement
simply showed that it was dragged around by the earth, as Sagnac found
out. I'll say it once again, by this time it was too late and because
einsteins math's lined up with the results it was taken as a proof of
bending space time, even though this is absurd.

Repeating your unsupported assertions does not strengthen your argument.

bobd wrote:

On Mar 31, 10:27 am, PD wrote:

On Mar 30, 3:23 pm, bobd wrote:




Einstein's proposal to do away with the aether is chiefly remarkable
for the lack of understanding of the physical universe which it
displays. Sir Issac Newton himself denounced those who believed action
could accur across empty space as not having a competent faculty of
thinking in philosophical matters. In his letter to Bently 1692-3 Feb
25 he says:

That gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to matter, so
that one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum,
without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their
action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so
great an absurdity, that I believe no man who has in philosophical
matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.
Gravity must be caused by by an agent acting constantly according to
certain laws.

Dr Silberstein, who had made a careful study of Einstein's theory and
thus pointed out the bizarre conclusions drawn by some pure
mathematicians who are prone to forget that the deflections of
starlight near the sun is a purely physical problem as the refraction
of light in the earth's atmosphere. The sun's deflection of light is
similar to refraction, but very minute - half of it being 0.875", as
against 2000 in earth's atmosphere, which is about 2300 times
smaller.

According to the report of observers of the eclipse of 1919, this
miunte deflection disappears, when the sun moves out of the path of
the light from the stars lying behind it, such a temporary effect
cannot properly be attributed to a warp of space; and one cannot
reflect how fortunate it is that the physical theory of astronomical
refraction was perfected by Newton, Laplace and Bessel before such
confusing terms as fourth dimension space time manifolds were
introduced into science.

It cannot be held that Einstein's theory enlightens us on the motion
of mercury's perihelion, because at least half a dozen explanations,
some of them approved by Newton, Hall, Newcomb,and Seeliger, are
already known.

Nor can it be believed that the Global positioning system works purely
based on the space time warp when it can much easily and less
mystically be explained by the dragging of the universal medium around
the earth as proven by the esteemed french scientist Sagnac and
constantly monitored by the huge Ring Lazer located in underground
caverns in my home town. Those who believe that this is a space time
warp need to have a look into practical thinking and stay away from
star trek.

But these of course will never even be looked at by mainstream science
because it would go against the faith in your religon you call
science. Every single scientific report that contradicts Einstein is
buried in haste or manipulated around his theory. Just look at the
faster than light experiment. FIrst of all it was claimed that it
simply couldn't happen and when they realised that it was actually
happening and couldn't be denied it was put down to it arriving before
it was sent or non physical realities. This is stupid and I expect
more from the esteemed men in science as some are of brilliant mind
but have been brainwashed by space time warps. Wake up people!!!

LeSage theory was actually fairly well developed, to the point where
it made a number of testable experimental predictions. Those
experimental observations were made and the model ruled out. This is
*precisely* the way science should work, and did work.

PD


All i'm talking about is the dragging of the aether around the earth
which was proven. Many theories have there good points but fail at
certain other things.

Have you looked at the magnitude of the frame dragging?

bobd wrote:

Why are you relativists on here?? This is a new theory web group???

You have posted this to sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity. There
are some real scientists here and we feel free to point out when you
are being silly.

If you do not want to hear the truth, stay in the alt groups and
the philosophy groups. You can say what you want and not be
challenged.

If
anything comes up that even remotely contradicts current mainstream
science, you start to argue.

When you claim something that is not true, of course knowledgeable
people will point it out. If that hurts your feelings do not show
up in the science groups.

This is not a fair revue of theories. Oh
by the way Phill, no offense but no one is going to buy your theory,
you have to give it away and if it's any good it will be either buried
if it contradicts the accepted laws or looked at.

Phil does not have a theory. He has a dream. Everything he has tried
to predict has been wrong. In one case by a factor of a billion. His
theory is DOA.

But to be honest
from what you have stated it's not too great. Don't quit your day job
just yet.

His time would be much more valuable to the world by keeping working on
open source software.

bobd wrote:

The speed of light is not constant.

Experimentally wrong. Not a good start to a post. Your comments

As with the speed of sound in air
it is related to the Elasticity and the density of the medium it is
propogated in. v = (square root of C/p) where C is a coefficient of
stiffness and p is the density. This changes dependant upon the point
in space it is measured. Due to an inherant property of mass the
aether is less dense near the sun and increases in density the furthur
out from the sun it goes, this is what pulls the earth towards it.

Because of the inherant properties of mass an object orbiting a bigger
object will find that force is givern to it at right angles to an
imaginary line drawn between the centre of the larger object and the
object. This also explains the anomaly of increase in speed in
slingshot manoeuvres that current theories cannot explain.

Handwaving and unsupported assertions are not science.

This
inherant property of mass is what causes gravity in all objects and
perfectly explains the micro casmir force. It is so simple someone
with half a brain could understand it, no need for pages and pages of
maths equations. Unfortunately it took me about 2 two years of
research to discover it.

So a child could understand it but you took two years to do so
and have no supporting math to show. Not a good start.

According to the best calculation of the density of the aether I have
found it has has an elastic power 689,321,600,000 times greater than
that of air in relation to it's density.

Presenting random numbers is not science.

Thus it has practically an
unlimited power of contraction. So it will be able to generate the
huge forces required for holding the planets and stars in their orbit.

Gravity, Magnetism and electric fields are caused by this medium under
strain wanting to return to it's natural state, just like waves in a
pool. The waves are propogated because of the natural want of the
water to return to equalibrium.

Greg Neill wrote:

Sorry, there's no way to get your (r2/r1)^2 rule
to fit what GR says, since a linear superposition
of such terms can never match a nonlinear curve.

Forget about that rule. It cannot be used since FR needs to put
everything into context.

I have compared FR's gravitational time dilation of a clock on the
surface of the Moon with GR's gravitational time dilation as observed
from the surface of the Earth and got a difference of: 100.0187%.

I have used:
t_gr = √(1 - 2gm / xc^2) / √(1 - 2gm / ic^2)
t_fr =
((n^2*x^2+m^2*x^2-2*i*n^2*x-2*j*m^2*x+i^2*n^2+j^2*m^2)*(y-i)^2*(y-j)^2)
/ ((x-i)^2*(x-j)^2*(n^2*y^2+m^2*y^2-2*i*n^2*y-2*j*m^2*y+i^2*n^2+j^2*m^2))

Whe
m = Mass of Earth
n = Mass of Sun
i = Location of the center of the Earth (from surface)
j = Location of the Sun (from Earth)
x = Location of clock (distance of the Moon)
y = Location of observer (surface of the Earth) or 0

t_fr / t_gr = 100.0187%

The difference between FR and GR inside the solar system is negligible.
It is also negligible inside the entire Milky Way.

[...]

Further, our orbit is at about 215 Sun radii. So things should
be happenning on the Sun about 215^2 or 46,000 times slower.
Strange that we don't see that kind of frequency shift in the
light we receive, no?

The Voyager spacecraft is currently out at about 108 AU from the
Sun. We're at 1 AU from the Sun, so the FR time dilation
contributon would be for us, what, (108/1)^2 = 11,664. I think
we'd have noticed a frequency shift of nearly 12,000 times in
the Voyager transmitters.

Interstellar scale is very different and we cannot neglect surrounding
stars. This is what my previous estimate of Alpha Centauri time travel
measurement was all about.

[...]

There's nothing on that web page that corresponds to what your
stated thought experiment is. The material there may be
impeccable or nonsense, but it doesn't matter if it is
irrelevant. You're just attempting to distract the conversation
away from your obvious errors. It won't work.

So you're saying Einsteinathome.Org is written by cranks? Fascinating.
I didn't know his name could legally be used to write such a corrupted
web site.

[...]

Oy vey.

So the Sun orbits the Earth then? The entire Universe does a
pinwheel around the Earth every day?

Explain then the observed anisotropy of the CMBR which indicates
that we have a motion against the local background radiation.

The inertia of the reference frames is specific to the surface of the
planet hosting the experiment.

Then what's the problem? If they are 1 meter appart when stationary,
then when they are launched they will be observed to be closer
together and the connecting rod will be shorter by the requisite
amount.

Ok then what happens now when there is no metallic rod between the two
cannonballs in motion?

[...]

No. GR is most certainly _*NOT*_ curve fitting. It is a
theory developed from first principles that generates
predictable results. There is really only the one adjustable
parameter, namely the cosmological constant, which has only
very recently become subject to scrutiny due to very recent
data. It doesn't bear on any of GR's other predictions and
tests. But you'd know that if you understood the math.

All that can be predicted with GR is the GPS system and the orbit of
Mercury. I heard only a few people on the planet knows GR completely so
it sounds like a lot of assumptions that need to be understood also.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Greg Neill wrote:


Sorry, there's no way to get your (r2/r1)^2 rule
to fit what GR says, since a linear superposition
of such terms can never match a nonlinear curve.


Forget about that rule. It cannot be used since FR needs to put
everything into context.

I have compared FR's gravitational time dilation of a clock on the
surface of the Moon with GR's gravitational time dilation as observed
from the surface of the Earth and got a difference of: 100.0187%.

That is wrong by a factor of about a billion. That would have been
noticed even in the Apollo 11 days.

Your gps calculation is also wrong by a factor of a billion.
You are trying to run and hide from that failure but it means
your "theory" is dead.


I have used:
t_gr = √(1 - 2gm / xc^2) / √(1 - 2gm / ic^2)
t_fr =
((n^2*x^2+m^2*x^2-2*i*n^2*x-2*j*m^2*x+i^2*n^2+j^2*m^2)*(y-i)^2*(y-j)^2)
/ ((x-i)^2*(x-j)^2*(n^2*y^2+m^2*y^2-2*i*n^2*y-2*j*m^2*y+i^2*n^2+j^2*m^2))

Whe
m = Mass of Earth
n = Mass of Sun
i = Location of the center of the Earth (from surface)
j = Location of the Sun (from Earth)
x = Location of clock (distance of the Moon)
y = Location of observer (surface of the Earth) or 0

t_fr / t_gr = 100.0187%

The difference between FR and GR inside the solar system is negligible.
It is also negligible inside the entire Milky Way.

So a factor of a billion near the earth is what you consider negligible?
That is pretty funny.



[...]

Further, our orbit is at about 215 Sun radii. So things should
be happenning on the Sun about 215^2 or 46,000 times slower.
Strange that we don't see that kind of frequency shift in the
light we receive, no?

The Voyager spacecraft is currently out at about 108 AU from the
Sun. We're at 1 AU from the Sun, so the FR time dilation
contributon would be for us, what, (108/1)^2 = 11,664. I think
we'd have noticed a frequency shift of nearly 12,000 times in
the Voyager transmitters.


Interstellar scale is very different and we cannot neglect surrounding
stars. This is what my previous estimate of Alpha Centauri time travel
measurement was all about.

In other words, it was a flagrant guess.

[...]

There's nothing on that web page that corresponds to what your
stated thought experiment is. The material there may be
impeccable or nonsense, but it doesn't matter if it is
irrelevant. You're just attempting to distract the conversation
away from your obvious errors. It won't work.


So you're saying Einsteinathome.Org is written by cranks? Fascinating.
I didn't know his name could legally be used to write such a corrupted
web site.

[...]

Oy vey.

So the Sun orbits the Earth then? The entire Universe does a
pinwheel around the Earth every day?

Explain then the observed anisotropy of the CMBR which indicates
that we have a motion against the local background radiation.


The inertia of the reference frames is specific to the surface of the
planet hosting the experiment.

Then what's the problem? If they are 1 meter appart when stationary,
then when they are launched they will be observed to be closer
together and the connecting rod will be shorter by the requisite
amount.


Ok then what happens now when there is no metallic rod between the two
cannonballs in motion?

Same think as when there is. But you do not seem to know that.


[...]

No. GR is most certainly _*NOT*_ curve fitting. It is a
theory developed from first principles that generates
predictable results. There is really only the one adjustable
parameter, namely the cosmological constant, which has only
very recently become subject to scrutiny due to very recent
data. It doesn't bear on any of GR's other predictions and
tests. But you'd know that if you understood the math.


All that can be predicted with GR is the GPS system and the orbit of
Mercury. I heard only a few people on the planet knows GR completely so
it sounds like a lot of assumptions that need to be understood also.

Well, you need to study relativity to not remain ignorant but that is
asking too much of you.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

Sorry, there's no way to get your (r2/r1)^2 rule
to fit what GR says, since a linear superposition
of such terms can never match a nonlinear curve.

Forget about that rule. It cannot be used since FR needs to put
everything into context.

I have compared FR's gravitational time dilation of a clock on the
surface of the Moon with GR's gravitational time dilation as observed
from the surface of the Earth and got a difference of: 100.0187%.

I have used:
t_gr = ?(1 - 2gm / xc^2) / ?(1 - 2gm / ic^2)

That looks rather suspect. For one, I see the same 2gm term used
for both bodies. And shouldn't that be GM? G the gravitational
constant (not the acceleration due to gravity) and M the mass of
the Earth or Moon as required?

Also, if you're going to do it right, you need to take into account
the effect of *both* bodies at both locations. So something like:

Let rm = 1737.5 km Radius of Moon
dm = 384400 km Distance of Moon
re = 6378 km Radius of Earth
Re = 2*G*Me/c^2 = 8.870 x 10^-3 m Earth Schwzc. radius
Rm = 2*G*Mm/c^2 = 1.095 x 10^-4 m Moon Schwzc. radius

sqrt(1 - Re/dm) * sqrt(1 - Rm/rm)
(t_m/t_e) = --------------------------------- = 1.000000000652
sqrt(1 - Re/re) * sqrt(1 - Rm/dm)


t_fr =
((n^2*x^2+m^2*x^2-2*i*n^2*x-2*j*m^2*x+i^2*n^2+j^2*m^2)*(y-i)^2*(y-j)^2)
/ ((x-i)^2*(x-j)^2*(n^2*y^2+m^2*y^2-2*i*n^2*y-2*j*m^2*y+i^2*n^2+j^2*m^2))

Whe
m = Mass of Earth
n = Mass of Sun
i = Location of the center of the Earth (from surface)
j = Location of the Sun (from Earth)
x = Location of clock (distance of the Moon)
y = Location of observer (surface of the Earth) or 0

t_fr / t_gr = 100.0187%

The difference between FR and GR inside the solar system is negligible.
It is also negligible inside the entire Milky Way.

Apparently not.


[...]

Further, our orbit is at about 215 Sun radii. So things should
be happenning on the Sun about 215^2 or 46,000 times slower.
Strange that we don't see that kind of frequency shift in the
light we receive, no?

The Voyager spacecraft is currently out at about 108 AU from the
Sun. We're at 1 AU from the Sun, so the FR time dilation
contributon would be for us, what, (108/1)^2 = 11,664. I think
we'd have noticed a frequency shift of nearly 12,000 times in
the Voyager transmitters.

Interstellar scale is very different and we cannot neglect surrounding
stars. This is what my previous estimate of Alpha Centauri time travel
measurement was all about.

Nonsense. The Voyager is nowhere near another star. It's
not even out of the solar neighborhood. The nearest star
is over 4 light years away. That's over 63000 AU. After that
other stars are much further still. You're grasping at straws,
and don't even know what they look like.


[...]

There's nothing on that web page that corresponds to what your
stated thought experiment is. The material there may be
impeccable or nonsense, but it doesn't matter if it is
irrelevant. You're just attempting to distract the conversation
away from your obvious errors. It won't work.

So you're saying Einsteinathome.Org is written by cranks? Fascinating.

No, not at all. I simply said that the contents of the web
page were irrelevant if they didn't address the thought
experiement which was supposedly the reason why you
posting the link.

I didn't know his name could legally be used to write such a corrupted
web site.

Anyone can write anything they want, no matter what drivel
it contains. Take your stuff, for example. However, as far
as I can tell from a quick read, that web site is fine if
superficial.


[...]

Oy vey.

So the Sun orbits the Earth then? The entire Universe does a
pinwheel around the Earth every day?

Explain then the observed anisotropy of the CMBR which indicates
that we have a motion against the local background radiation.

The inertia of the reference frames is specific to the surface of the
planet hosting the experiment.

Non sequitur. Reference frames don't have inertia. Have you not
yet learned what a reference frame is?


Then what's the problem? If they are 1 meter appart when stationary,
then when they are launched they will be observed to be closer
together and the connecting rod will be shorter by the requisite
amount.

Ok then what happens now when there is no metallic rod between the two
cannonballs in motion?

Under the same conditions they will be observed to be closer
togther after launching, exactly as before. Have you still not
read and understood anything about Relativity?


[...]

No. GR is most certainly _*NOT*_ curve fitting. It is a
theory developed from first principles that generates
predictable results. There is really only the one adjustable
parameter, namely the cosmological constant, which has only
very recently become subject to scrutiny due to very recent
data. It doesn't bear on any of GR's other predictions and
tests. But you'd know that if you understood the math.

All that can be predicted with GR is the GPS system and the orbit of
Mercury. I heard only a few people on the planet knows GR completely so
it sounds like a lot of assumptions that need to be understood also.

Balderdash. Apparently your computer is not connected to
the same internet that the rest of use. The tests of GR
are many and varied. If you'd look into the literature
you'd know that. Furthermore, while a profound understanding
of GR may be held by relatively few (a few hundred perhaps?),
a good working knowledge is held by thousands. It's taught
in Universities around the planet to students taking physics.
But this can be said of any discipline where there are
recognized geniuses at work.

On Mar 30, 1:15*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On Mar 30, 8:43 am, Phil Bouchard wrote:
[snip all]

What the hell are you doing, Phil?

Why are you posting here?

Here's a video you might be interested in, Eric:http://www.speed-light.info/video_bl...e_wormhole.htm

Why would I be interested in a video about a subject that I already
understand? The wormhole crap is just that - crap. Not physically
meaningful even if GR were 100% correct.

This is what happens when children read comic books.