Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

On Mar 30, 4:01Â*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:

[...]

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

Somehow your expression doesn't depend on the gravitational constant.
**** off until you learn something.


t_fr / t_gr Â*= 100.0187%

Stupid ****. A parts per hundred difference is ridiculously
observable.


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

You don't know what the hell you are talking about. You have no idea
what observation consists of, and why your spew is ridiculously wrong.

[...]

All that can be predicted with GR is the GPS system and the orbit of
Mercury. Â*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.

Oh look more idiocy from the clueless programmer.

AGAIN: WHY ARE YOU HERE? You have NO experience in the field.

On Mar 31, 12:23 pm, doug wrote:
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.

My apologies I thought I was posting to the new theories one only. How
do I change this I am new to google groups.


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.


You call yourself scientists but you are metaphysicists. You believe
that light does not propogate through a medium because you read it in
a text book, when the evidence is overwhelming. A reasonably constant
speed of light. What makes it travel at this speed??? A simple answer,
the relationship of the medium it travels through's elasticity and
density.) You also believe that action can happen at a distance with
no intervening medium.(Gravity) This is absurd. You believe the
universe is magical. These are not my assuptions they are assuptions
of wise men of the early 20th century who fought like mad to prevent
pop science falling into the trap it has fallen into. (Lorentz,
Laplace, Michelson, Fitzgerald, Tesla, Lord Kelvin, J J Thomson)

The aether explains magnetism of which you do not know the cause. The
aether explains an electric field of which you also do not know the
cause, you believe that like gravity it happens through nothing and is
purely magical.

When evidence proved that there wasn't enough mass in the universe for
einsteins theory then dark matter was invented. Where is the dark
matter in our solar system????? Have we found any of it???? Has it
been experiementally verified???? Are there any effects of it in our
solar system??? No, no, no. It is just postulated to exist because
science "has faith" that Einstein was right and anything that proves
him wrong has to be manipulated to make his theory correct.

Explain to me now why you personally believe light travels at the
speed it does? I know the mainstream answer but I want to hear you
explain it because I bet not one of you truely understands the
accepted answer. You will say you do but you don't.

This will be my last post to the non- new theories group. But please I
beg of you, research in depth the history of science, realise where it
went wrong.(M-M experiement and Sagnac experiement) Only then can we
escape the trap we have fallen into.

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:

On Mar 31, 12:23 pm, doug wrote:

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.


My apologies I thought I was posting to the new theories one only. How
do I change this I am new to google groups.

You should post on a alt.morons group where you will not be bothered
with facts. People post from google groups because they do not know
how to use a proper newsreader.


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.



You call yourself scientists but you are metaphysicists. You believe
that light does not propogate through a medium because you read it in
a text book, when the evidence is overwhelming.

We scientists believe in facts. If you want delusions, go to philosophy.

A reasonably constant
speed of light. What makes it travel at this speed??? A simple answer,
the relationship of the medium it travels through's elasticity and
density.) You also believe that action can happen at a distance with
no intervening medium.(Gravity) This is absurd.

Your ignorance is not a scientific argument.

You believe the
universe is magical. These are not my assuptions they are assuptions
of wise men of the early 20th century who fought like mad to prevent
pop science falling into the trap it has fallen into. (Lorentz,
Laplace, Michelson, Fitzgerald, Tesla, Lord Kelvin, J J Thomson)

You being a crank has no effect on real scientists.


The aether explains magnetism of which you do not know the cause. The
aether explains an electric field of which you also do not know the
cause, you believe that like gravity it happens through nothing and is
purely magical.

Your ignorance is not a way of knowing things.


When evidence proved that there wasn't enough mass in the universe for
einsteins theory then dark matter was invented. Where is the dark
matter in our solar system????? Have we found any of it???? Has it
been experiementally verified???? Are there any effects of it in our
solar system??? No, no, no. It is just postulated to exist because
science "has faith" that Einstein was right and anything that proves
him wrong has to be manipulated to make his theory correct.

Paranoia is not a way of knowing things either.


Explain to me now why you personally believe light travels at the
speed it does? I know the mainstream answer but I want to hear you
explain it because I bet not one of you truely understands the
accepted answer. You will say you do but you don't.

Light travels at the speed it does because it does. Worryig about
it is philosophy and best done after drinking lots of beer.

This will be my last post to the non- new theories group. But please I
beg of you, research in depth the history of science, realise where it
went wrong.(M-M experiement and Sagnac experiement) Only then can we
escape the trap we have fallen into.

Science has not gone wrong. Our education system has gone wrong in
that there are so many like you totally ignorant of science.



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.

On Mar 31, 5:37*pm, doug wrote:
bobd wrote:
On Mar 31, 12:23 pm, doug wrote:

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.

My apologies I thought I was posting to the new theories one only. How
do I change this I am new to google groups.

You should post on a alt.morons group where you will not be bothered
with facts. People post from google groups because they do not know
how to use a proper newsreader.


F&*k off D*&khead. How do I change it so I don't post to you.



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.

You call yourself scientists but you are metaphysicists. You believe
that light does not propogate through a medium because you read it in
a text book, when the evidence is overwhelming.

We scientists believe in facts. If you want delusions, go to philosophy.

A reasonably constant

speed of light. What makes it travel at this speed??? A simple answer,
the relationship of the medium it travels through's elasticity and
density.) You also believe that action can happen at a distance with
no intervening medium.(Gravity) This is absurd.

Your ignorance is not a scientific argument.

* You believe the

universe is magical. These are not my assuptions they are assuptions
of wise men of the early 20th century who fought like mad to prevent
pop science falling into the trap it has fallen into. (Lorentz,
Laplace, Michelson, Fitzgerald, Tesla, Lord Kelvin, J J Thomson)

You being a crank has no effect on real scientists.



The aether explains magnetism of which you do not know the cause. The
aether explains an electric field of which you also do not know the
cause, you believe that like gravity it happens through nothing and is
purely magical.

Your ignorance is not a way of knowing things.



When evidence proved that there wasn't enough mass in the universe for
einsteins theory then dark matter was invented. Where is the dark
matter in our solar system????? Have we found any of it???? Has it
been experiementally verified???? Are there any effects of it in our
solar system??? No, no, no. It is just postulated to exist because
science "has faith" that Einstein was right and anything that proves
him wrong has to be manipulated to make his theory correct.

Paranoia is not a way of knowing things either.



Explain to me now why you personally believe light travels at the
speed it does? I know the mainstream answer but I want to hear you
explain it because I bet not one of you truely understands the
accepted answer. You will say you do but you don't.

Light travels at the speed it does because it does. Worryig about
it is philosophy and best done after drinking lots of beer.



This will be my last post to the non- new theories group. But please I
beg of you, research in depth the history of science, realise where it
went wrong.(M-M experiement and Sagnac experiement) Only then can we
escape the trap we have fallen into.

Science has not gone wrong. Our education system has gone wrong in
that there are so many like you totally ignorant of science.



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.

On Mar 30, 8:39*pm, bobd wrote:

[...]


F&*k off D*&khead. How do I change it so I don't post to you.

I find that a modicum of self control helps in situations like this.

[...]

bobd wrote:

On Mar 31, 5:37 pm, doug wrote:

bobd wrote:

On Mar 31, 12:23 pm, doug wrote:

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.

My apologies I thought I was posting to the new theories one only. How
do I change this I am new to google groups.

You should post on a alt.morons group where you will not be bothered
with facts. People post from google groups because they do not know
how to use a proper newsreader.



F&*k off D*&khead. How do I change it so I don't post to you.

If you want to post nonsense like you have done so far, you will
get your mistakes pointed out to you. Post somewhere where only
people ignorant of science post and you will be happy. If you
have no idea of how a computer works, I am not going to help
you. You are wasting your time trying to do science since
you are into paranoia and delusions.




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.

You call yourself scientists but you are metaphysicists. You believe
that light does not propogate through a medium because you read it in
a text book, when the evidence is overwhelming.

We scientists believe in facts. If you want delusions, go to philosophy.

A reasonably constant


speed of light. What makes it travel at this speed??? A simple answer,
the relationship of the medium it travels through's elasticity and
density.) You also believe that action can happen at a distance with
no intervening medium.(Gravity) This is absurd.

Your ignorance is not a scientific argument.

You believe the


universe is magical. These are not my assuptions they are assuptions
of wise men of the early 20th century who fought like mad to prevent
pop science falling into the trap it has fallen into. (Lorentz,
Laplace, Michelson, Fitzgerald, Tesla, Lord Kelvin, J J Thomson)

You being a crank has no effect on real scientists.




The aether explains magnetism of which you do not know the cause. The
aether explains an electric field of which you also do not know the
cause, you believe that like gravity it happens through nothing and is
purely magical.

Your ignorance is not a way of knowing things.




When evidence proved that there wasn't enough mass in the universe for
einsteins theory then dark matter was invented. Where is the dark
matter in our solar system????? Have we found any of it???? Has it
been experiementally verified???? Are there any effects of it in our
solar system??? No, no, no. It is just postulated to exist because
science "has faith" that Einstein was right and anything that proves
him wrong has to be manipulated to make his theory correct.

Paranoia is not a way of knowing things either.




Explain to me now why you personally believe light travels at the
speed it does? I know the mainstream answer but I want to hear you
explain it because I bet not one of you truely understands the
accepted answer. You will say you do but you don't.

Light travels at the speed it does because it does. Worryig about
it is philosophy and best done after drinking lots of beer.




This will be my last post to the non- new theories group. But please I
beg of you, research in depth the history of science, realise where it
went wrong.(M-M experiement and Sagnac experiement) Only then can we
escape the trap we have fallen into.

Science has not gone wrong. Our education system has gone wrong in
that there are so many like you totally ignorant of science.




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.

Eric Gisse wrote:

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.

So Albert Einstein wrote crap according to you?

Sam Wormley wrote:

bobd wrote:


You call yourself scientists but you are metaphysicists. You believe
that light does not propogate through a medium because you read it in
a text book, when the evidence is overwhelming.


Why in the world would light need a medium... it propagates thru
empty space just fine. The evidence is overwhelming.

But bobd does not like that idea. He wants the universe to
change to fit his prejudices.

On Mar 30, 10:25*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:

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.

So Albert Einstein wrote crap according to you?

I got a better question. Why did a programmer turn on a dime and start
shoveling 20 ****posts/day into a newsgroup about a subject whose
knowledge consists of lay person explanations?

Greg Neill wrote:
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?

gm = GM. I was assuming this was obvious. Furthermore I do not
consider the mass of the Moon, but only its distance. This way the
equation can be used for any distance such as a closer satellite for
example. The mass of the moon is not considered for GR calculations
either, only its distance.

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)

Take "sqrt(1 - Rm/rm)" & "sqrt(1 - Rm/dm)" out and you'll have the same
thing I reported.

Apparently not.

Unless you can prove 0.999814 of a second isn't part of the experimental
error for a distance of 384399000 m.

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.

It is very different even where Voyager is right now because I made the
calculations previously. This makes FR equivalent to GR at that scale
still.

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.

Ok forget the fact if Einstein directly said it or not, or officially
tape recorded. What matters is what is shown on the web page.

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?

I'm talking about the real world here. This is what makes the Earth the
center of the Universe as far as your or Michelson-Morley measurements
are concerned.

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?

Ok. Now we officially get your answer. The cannonballs will contract
and thus get closer together, as seen by an observer on the Earth's
surface.

Peter said the cannonballs will distinctively contract on their own and
whatever might happen to tie them together will break, as seen by an
observer on the Earth's surface.

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.

GR doesn't work at the Universe scale. It seems allowing wormholes,
cosmological constants, time travel in the past, singularities, and
consequently an infinite amount of universes. It also silently
dismisses the Hubble sphere problem.