Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

wrote:

On Mar 31, 9:29 am, "Greg Neill" wrote:

[...]


Sounds like your clock's on the Moon to me. You still say you
can disregard the mass of the Moon in the calculation?


Nevermind the Moon, forget about it, niet, nada. Just consider a
clock floating in space and having a radius to be the same as the
Moon.

We have the gps system. You failed to calculate that to a factor
of a billion.


GR does better than one part in 10^15 in many cases.
The last time I checked, 0.999814s was much larger than 1e-9s.


I never heard any space probe confirming Einstein's predictions on
time dilation down to 1e-15 s. Where is the experimental evidence?

You have not even looked at the list of experiments.

What!?! Are you serious? Are you *truly* that clueless about
Relativity, frames of reference, and the dynamics of light?
A flashlight *cannot* move at the speed of light.


No but c - epsilon.


Precisely. And this is why it failed.

Huh? That makes no sense at all. Elaborate please.


MM failed proving the velocity of the Earth has anything to do with
local speed of light measurements on its surface. Just bring the high
precision wavelength meter into a satellite and you'll get different
results.

And the reasoning for this assertion is? You brought up some
nonsense in the past about precision wavelength measurements
but you were not coherent enough to make any sense.


What matters is the state of motion when measurements are made,
whether those are experimental setup measurements (like
determining the length of rope to use) or measurements taken
during the running of the experiment (like what the length
of the rope is when it's in motion).


Any lucid person reading these posts knows what I mean. How the
cannonballs are launched make no difference; whether the cannons are 1
meter away and fire at the same time or the cannons are at the same
place and fire with a 3.33e-9 s interval.

You shot yourself in the foot.

No, the shot hit your foot. Read what reference frames are
about.

[...]


That's nonsense. In fact there is no evidence that the necessary
conditions could ever be met, even theoretically, for wormhole
creation, for example. Time travel looks like it would be
restricted to the time of existence and immediate vicinity
if whatever device is employed to exploit it.


"The necessary conditions" need to be ready in the event they are
met. This means God will create the necessary amount of universes on
the fly so that the time traveler sees no difference.

Enough of that non-sense.

So that is what FR predicts. Relativity does not.


Huh? That's like saying a natural hole in the ground is somehow
different from one you dig yourself.


No I am saying you need cutting through the gravity field to create
the pipe of a tunnel. This can't be done naturally.

So you are going to do it supernaturally. You are confusing
your tv shows with physics again.

Enough of all this non-sense, there is nothing more to debate.

You are completely wrong in everything you have shown or tried
to calculate. There is no debate that FR is completely wrong.

Doug's
intimidation can't silently dismiss GR is packed with blunders and
therefore is not credible.

You have not even begun to show any blunders in GR. We have shown
blunders in FR. FR is therefore not credible.

doug wrote:

[...]

We have the gps system. You failed to calculate that to a factor
of a billion.

Doug came down to the level of pure lies and propaganda.

"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull
his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you
understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send
signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there
is no cat." -- Albert Einstein

"If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only
have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more
plants, no more animals, no more man." -- Albert Einstein

"With fame I become more and more stupid, which of course is a very
common phenomenon." -- Albert Einstein

"The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

[...]

Greg Neill wrote:

Are then to suppose that your formula

t_2 = t_1*(r_2/R_1)^2

applies?

t_fr = ((n2*x2+m2*x2-2*i*n2*x-2*j*m2*x+i2*n2+j2*m2)*(y-i)2*(y-j)2) /
((x-i)2*(x-j)2*(n2*y2+m2*y2-2*i*n2*y-2*j*m2*y+i2*n2+j2*m2))

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

[...]

That is ruled out by observation of stellar abberration
(or rather the lack of it). If the speed of light were
being influenced by a glop of medium sticking to the
Earth's surface, there would necessarily be a boundary
where the glop merges into the background at some distance.
This would then necessarily cause refraction effects (like
the way a ray of light bends when it goes from air to
water or vice versa).

Gravitational refraction vs. space contraction are very similar. GR
brings singularities, natural wormholes, time travel in the past,
velocity cap of 3e8 m/s, length contraction, infinite masses, the
Hubble's sphere problem and consequently an infinite amount of universes
and dark matter.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
experiment can prove me wrong." -- Albert Einstein

This means the length contraction paradox is enough proving the entire
century of experiments was subjective or imprecise. The GPS system
measurements can be replaced by a heuristic extrapolation of higher
precision anyways.

Any lucid person reading these posts knows what I mean. How the
cannonballs are launched make no difference; whether the cannons are 1
meter away and fire at the same time or the cannons are at the same
place and fire with a 3.33e-9 s interval

What makes a difference is what measurements and settings
are made in which frames of reference. You've been very
cavalier about making assumptions of when values critical
to the results are determined, and jump wholeheartedly from
frame to frame making unwarranted assumptions about the
values. This is why you're confused about the results you're
getting and think that it's SR's fault rather than your
methodology.

The length contraction effect is measured by an observer standing on the
ground. If you cannot understand it, this is pure denial.

[...]

No I am saying you need cutting through the gravity field to create
the pipe of a tunnel. This can't be done naturally.

Sounds like nonsense to me, or really bad Star Trek TNG babble.

"Nonsense is relative and limited to your perception."

FTL sounds to be a very interesting project to be further studied.

[...]

Enough said.

doug wrote:

Well phil, this is a very strange response on your part. You
gave a formula for time dilation. I put numbers into it to
see what came out. The numbers were wrong by a factor of
a billion. You do not like that but it is neither a lie
nor propaganda. You may not like it but the results came
from what you posted. Even if you use one of your ascii salad
"formulas" you still get the wrong answer. Thus your "theory"
is wrong. That is the truth even if it hurts for you to see
that.

Now we got:

GR's singularities, natural wormholes, time travel in the past, velocity
cap of 3e8 m/s, length contraction, infinite masses, the Hubble's sphere
problem and consequently an infinite amount of universes and dark matter.

vs.

FR's 0.999814% solar system scale difference.

Good luck.

doug wrote:

I never said that. You, as usual, completely misunderstood
the science. The gps clocks vary by a nsec or so but that
is because the earth is not a perfectly uniform sphere.

And, since you miss the gps number by a factor of a billion,
FR is DOA and you should go back to doing software.

Doug denies evidence and now denies his own lies. Softwares actually
don't care if a paradox is or isn't a paradox because it will crash
regardless.

Good luck with your choices.

[...]

PD wrote:

Einstein wrote nothing about wormholes. Please at least get your
history right.

How about the Einstein-Rosen bridge?

Phil Bouchard wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

Are then to suppose that your formula

t_2 = t_1*(r_2/R_1)^2

applies?

t_fr = ((n2*x2+m2*x2-2*i*n2*x-2*j*m2*x+i2*n2+j2*m2)*(y-i)2*(y-j)2) /
((x-i)2*(x-j)2*(n2*y2+m2*y2-2*i*n2*y-2*j*m2*y+i2*n2+j2*m2))

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


Plugging in the requisite values yields:

t_fr = 1.000198...

In the case of GR, the Sun's contribution is a wash because
the distance to the Sun between the surface of the Earth and
the clock at the Moon's distance from the Earth is essentially
the same. The time calculation is depends only on the distance
from the Earth and the Earth's characteristics (Mass):

t_gr = sqrt(1 - Re/dm)/sqrt(1 - Re/re)

= sqrt( (re/dm)*(dm - Re)/(re - Re))

with:

re = Earth radius
Re = Earth Schwarzschild radius (incorporates mass, G, c)
dm = Moon orbital radius

Plugging in the values yields:

t_gr = 1.000000000684

which is a far cry from the value that your formula yields.
Do you still claim that FR and GR give the same results?


[...]

That is ruled out by observation of stellar abberration
(or rather the lack of it). If the speed of light were
being influenced by a glop of medium sticking to the
Earth's surface, there would necessarily be a boundary
where the glop merges into the background at some distance.
This would then necessarily cause refraction effects (like
the way a ray of light bends when it goes from air to
water or vice versa).

Gravitational refraction vs. space contraction are very similar. GR
brings singularities, natural wormholes, time travel in the past,
velocity cap of 3e8 m/s, length contraction, infinite masses, the
Hubble's sphere problem and consequently an infinite amount of universes
and dark matter.

More nonsense and obfuscation. You were proposing aether
entrainment as an explanation for the M&M null result. It
is ruled out for lack of abberration effects.

Oh, and you're ranting again.


"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
experiment can prove me wrong." -- Albert Einstein

This means the length contraction paradox is enough proving the entire
century of experiments was subjective or imprecise. The GPS system
measurements can be replaced by a heuristic extrapolation of higher
precision anyways.

Alas for you, there's no paradox. Just your lack of understanding.


Any lucid person reading these posts knows what I mean. How the
cannonballs are launched make no difference; whether the cannons are 1
meter away and fire at the same time or the cannons are at the same
place and fire with a 3.33e-9 s interval

What makes a difference is what measurements and settings
are made in which frames of reference. You've been very
cavalier about making assumptions of when values critical
to the results are determined, and jump wholeheartedly from
frame to frame making unwarranted assumptions about the
values. This is why you're confused about the results you're
getting and think that it's SR's fault rather than your
methodology.

The length contraction effect is measured by an observer standing on the
ground. If you cannot understand it, this is pure denial.

And how about the rest, Phil? There's no problem with the
observer on the ground. It's the choices made in the
carrying out of the experimental procedure that you're
playing fast and loose with.


[...]

No I am saying you need cutting through the gravity field to create
the pipe of a tunnel. This can't be done naturally.

Sounds like nonsense to me, or really bad Star Trek TNG babble.

"Nonsense is relative and limited to your perception."

FTL sounds to be a very interesting project to be further studied.

Sure. Study away! Let us know when you come up with something
that isn't a dog's breakfast of self contradiction and empirical
failures.


[...]

Enough said.

Indeed.

Greg Neill wrote:

Your answer: 1.000187
GR answer: 1.000000000652

Okay, so it's more like a 20,000% difference.

1.00000000069 / 1.00019 = 99.9814% in my homeland.

[...]

The problem is that you do not stick to a single version
of the experiment, don't specifically define the frame
of reference in which critical decisions are made (who
measures the length of rope before firing?) and then frame
jump, drawing incorrect conlcusions. In other words, you're
claiming that you've proved that SR is incorrect, when
instead all you've proved is that you don't understand SR
and how to apply it properly and cosistently.

There is no problem except from the exceptional lack of understanding of
a very simple scenario. I keep saying the observer is standing on the
ground and the rope is 1 meter in length before it gets propelled by the
cannons.

Serious FTL research should silently take over.

Take over what?

Doug.

Peter Webb wrote:
Your equation for time dilation when applied the the operation of the
Relativistic Ion Collider requires it to have measuring devices 100
times larger than they are now, as tracks that are measured as 4" should
actually be 30 feet long.

Obviously your theory is wrong.

If FR's kinematic time dilation is wrong, SR's still wrong or a very
lucky guess from Einstein.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

doug wrote:

[...]

We have the gps system. You failed to calculate that to a factor
of a billion.


Doug came down to the level of pure lies and propaganda.

Well phil, this is a very strange response on your part. You
gave a formula for time dilation. I put numbers into it to
see what came out. The numbers were wrong by a factor of
a billion. You do not like that but it is neither a lie
nor propaganda. You may not like it but the results came
from what you posted. Even if you use one of your ascii salad
"formulas" you still get the wrong answer. Thus your "theory"
is wrong. That is the truth even if it hurts for you to see
that.



"You see, wire telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat. You pull
his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you
understand this? And radio operates exactly the same way: you send
signals here, they receive them there. The only difference is that there
is no cat." -- Albert Einstein

"If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only
have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more
plants, no more animals, no more man." -- Albert Einstein

"With fame I become more and more stupid, which of course is a very
common phenomenon." -- Albert Einstein

"The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting different results." -- Albert Einstein

[...]