Finite Relativism & Special Relativity Disproof

Phil Bouchard wrote:
Greg Neill wrote:

The leading 1 is throwing you. The interesting stuff
happens after the decimal point, since it's scale factors
that we're comparing. What we want to know is the
magnitude of the difference in time ticks between the
undilated time and the dilated time. That is, for a
1 second refeence tick we have times (1 + DeltaFR) and
(1 + DeltaGR) that's of interest. So, for each 1 second
on the reference clock FR adds 0.000187 seconds.
GR adds only 0.000000000652 seconds.

So the predicted differences differ by about 6 orders of
magnitude. Delta percent is:

(0.000187 - 0.000000000652)
--------------------------- x 100% = +29 million percent
(0.000000000652)

Wow, was I ever short of the mark when I said 20,000% !
Thanks for pointing this out, Phil.

What everybody wants to know is the time shown by the atomic clock.

Not me. I'm more interested in how much time must be added to
a given unit of time. That is, the discrepency in the length
the second when comparing events and processes in two frames.
But maybe that's just because I'm more interested in the
physics than when the lunch bell is going to ring.


You can't try all equations you find, and bring out the one giving the
biggest difference as insignificant the result can be in that context.

Phil Bouchard wrote:
doug wrote:

See, there is that demonstration of complete ignorance.
FR has given badly wrong answers to anything you have
tried to make it do. That is not what a scientist calls
"standing together", it is what a scientist calls WRONG.

But you did answer my question. You are so completely
ignorant of science that you really did expect to have
your drivel accepted. Your stupidity is astounding.

"Only Doug can see blunders intelligent."

If singularities, wormholes, time travel in the past, as well as length
contraction, infinite masses and consequently an infinite amount of
universes created on the fly and dark matter were all accepted, then I
don't think it is difficult to disprove.

Well get busy then. So far you've not provided a single
case!


Furthermore if the Superstring and its 11 dimensions is officially
accepted, it's not helping your seriousness.

Officially accepted by whom? It's a theory of interest to
theoreticians only at this point, as so far it makes no
testable predictions. It will *never* be accepted unless
it does so.

doug wrote:

Well, you have failed miserably in trying to do so. You keep
repeating your ignorance as if the reptition will improve it.
You need to show action, not your whining and tantrums about
things you do not like. All your predictions have been badly
wrong.

GR disproves itself by its resulting infinite amount of universes. I
disproved length contraction and consequently the entire SR.

Furthermore if the Superstring and its 11 dimensions is officially
accepted, it's not helping your seriousness.

String theory is not part of relativity in case you had not noticed.

It's not helping you either.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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

What evidence is that? You have presented nothing.

and now denies his own lies.

Your inability to read does not constitute a lie on
my part. There is no need to lie anyway, since the facts
are all on the side of FR and the "predictions" of FR are
laughable.

Softwares actually
don't care if a paradox is or isn't a paradox because it will crash
regardless.

Then you have no clue what a paradox is. But it is true that most
software crashes just because the programmers are incompetent.
And, you cannot blaim that on relativity.


Good luck with your choices.

Yes, I have found reality works quite well for me.


[...]

On Mar 31, 3:59*pm, Phil Bouchard wrote:
PD wrote:

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

How about the Einstein-Rosen bridge?

My mistake. That, however, is not a stable wormhole solution.

PD

Greg Neill wrote:

[...]

This is the first time you've stated the length of the rope
and the fact that it is measured before launch. But now that
you have done so, I can say that the results will be as
reported by SR. The rope will break before the second ball
is fired if the firing timing is done by the cannoneer in
the rest frame.

So the rope will break when the cannons are at the same location and are
propelled by an interval of 3.33e-9 s, as seen and timed by an observer
standing on the surface of the Earth. The same should thus happen if I
use a metallic rod instead of a rope.

Everybody seems to agree on the fact if the cannons are 1 meter away
from each other and the bullets are fired at the exact same time then
the cannonballs will contract altogether, as seen and timed by an
observer standing on the surface of the Earth.

We must now conclude the way the bullets are ejected determines if the
moving bodies will contract distinctively or altogether, as seen and
timed by an observer standing on the surface of the Earth.

Thank you.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

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.

No, only in cs world. The size of the effect is 1- the
above numbers and Greg is correct. You little game
will not work on people who know what they are doing.


[...]

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.

Well, study and you will not misunderstand the 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.

doug wrote:

Well, do not do any of it. Stay home for awhile.

Doug is doing intimidation and propaganda.

Phil Bouchard wrote:

Serious FTL research should silently take over.


Take over what?


Doug.

Phil, I am curious. You come here and demonstrate a complete
lack of knowledge of science, experiments, analysis, and
history helped along by an unwillingness to learn. Do you
really expect anyone to leap up and hail you as a great
scientist when you have gotten everything you have done
so far completely wrong?

Greg Neill wrote:

Guess? It's rigorously derived from a small set of simple
postulates. No guessing involved.

Where its 2 postulates are actually *wrong*.