FR Bending of Light
philippeb8
according to Finite Relativism. The perihelion precession of Mercury
remains constant (2.49e-7 rad/cycle) like it was demonstrated before
and the discrepancy of the bending of light is of the order of 1e-7
rad!
http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr.exe
The discrepancy found in 1919 was of 4.2e-6 rad:
http://web.mit.edu/6.055/notes/bending-of-light.pdf
I do not use the same conditions but we can already see its order to
be of the same magnitude.
-Phil
dlzc
On Nov 23, 10:21 am, philippeb8 <philipp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The
> perihelion precession of Mercury remains
> constant (2.49e-7 rad/cycle) like it was
> demonstrated before and the discrepancy of the
> bending of light is of the order of 1e-7
> rad!
<do not download executables from anyone you cannot collect damages
from if they screw up your computer>
Why do you insist on providing a virus / trojan transmission conduit
as proof that you don't know what you are talking about?
David A. Smith
Androcles
"philippeb8" <phili...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eeed4d4f-a1ff-46f0...@o31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
-- Androcles
philippeb8
> Dear philippeb8:
>
> <do not download executables from anyone you cannot collect damages
> from if they screw up your computer>
David missed the part when I said viruses is a fraud and consequently
I wouldn't put my name on it if there was any. If you don't believe
me then here's AVIs:
http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr-lb.avi
http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr-pp.avi
> Why do you insist on providing a virus / trojan transmission conduit
> as proof that you don't know what you are talking about?
How do you explain I get answers and you don't?
philippeb8
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Shapiro/Crapiro.htm
> -- Androcles
So the spacetime curvature is full-duplex according to Einstein?
BTW Einstein also said:
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --
Albert Einstein
PD
> I have correctly implemented the bending of light calculations
> according to Finite Relativism. The perihelion precession of Mercury
> remains constant (2.49e-7 rad/cycle) like it was demonstrated before
> and the discrepancy of the bending of light is of the order of 1e-7
>
> The discrepancy found in 1919 was of 4.2e-6 rad:http://web.mit.edu/6.055/notes/bending-of-light.pdf
>
> I do not use the same conditions but we can already see its order to
> be of the same magnitude.
>
> -Phil
I notice that Phil is no longer using the email address at the company
at which he no longer appears to be employed.
eric gisse
So you are still wrong. Thanks for the update.
>
>
> -Phil
eric gisse
Except you get wrong answers. Why are you bragging about getting wrong
answers, Phil?
philippeb8
>
> I notice that Phil is no longer using the email address at the company
> at which he no longer appears to be employed.
PD got the wrong conclusions again which comes with no surprise. The
other news server is down.
BURT
Light is guided by the space curve into a motion curve. It is a
shallow parabola as it passes by the Sun. Light is weightless as it is
always in freefall. Lights flows in the aether of space.
Mitch Raemsch
philippeb8
>
> Except you get wrong answers. Why are you bragging about getting wrong
> answers, Phil?
Now Doug being banned from Google uses Eric's account.
Those are approximations close enough to the real answers.
eric gisse
> On Nov 23, 11:17 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Except you get wrong answers. Why are you bragging about getting wrong
>> answers, Phil?
>
> Now Doug being banned from Google uses Eric's account.
That is both grammatically and factually incorrect. Nice.
>
> Those are approximations close enough to the real answers.
That's a fancy way of saying you are still wrong and don't care.
philippeb8
[...]
> That's a fancy way of saying you are still wrong and don't care.
It shows FR is right and that the difference in angle is an offset,
not a factor. This makes GR look even worse.
Sam Wormley
What's with the new id, Phil?
philippeb8
Sam lacks discipline and does not pay attention in his classes.
Androcles
=======================================================
Einstein's hidden source:
'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any
of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along
with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.
(written when Einstein was 16 years old)
He got his hard-on for time whilst working in the Swiss Patent Office,
looking at applications for new Swiss cuckoo clock designs - that's how he
went cuckoo. Sci-fi can be VERY creative, but it is still sci-fi, not
science.
Uncle Al
>
> I have correctly implemented the bending of light calculations
> according to Finite Relativism.
1) Falling light,
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
Nature 425 374-376 (2003).
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
Section 3.4.1, Figure 5
2) Deeply relativistic neutron star binary PSR J0737-3039A/B,
16.8995 deg/yr periastron advance, within 0.05% of GR model, Science
323(5919) 1327 (2009)
3) DI Herculis anomalous orbital precession reconciled with
General Relativity,
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2861
4) Does your bullshit theory predict periastron precession scales
as (semi-major axis)^(-3)?
5) idiot
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
PD
> On Nov 23, 9:30 am, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Dear philippeb8:
>
> > <do not download executables from anyone you cannot collect damages
> > from if they screw up your computer>
>
> David missed the part when I said viruses is a fraud and consequently
> I wouldn't put my name on it if there was any. If you don't believe
>
> > Why do you insist on providing a virus / trojan transmission conduit
> > as proof that you don't know what you are talking about?
>
> How do you explain I get answers and you don't?
What answers do you think you get that GR doesn't?
eric gisse
What are you babbling about? Do you even know?
philippeb8
>
> What answers do you think you get that GR doesn't?
GR is an art because it's validity is left to the interpreter. It
both accepts and rejects wormholes, parallel universes and a
cosmological constant.
"All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree." --
Albert Einstein
xxein
xxein: While you have hit closer to the truth, you don't have the
capicity to identify to this level of the physic. You are merely
making guesses upon eliminations. Not bad in itself, but you offer no
physically structural reason for this to be so.
ID a space curve. Why should it exist. Come on. Put some physic
into it.
BURT
Round is the universal geometry.
Mitch Raemsch
PD
> On Nov 23, 3:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What answers do you think you get that GR doesn't?
>
> GR is an art because it's validity is left to the interpreter.
??
> It
> both accepts and rejects wormholes, parallel universes and a
> cosmological constant.
And Newton's 2nd law accepts the presence of equilibrium and
nonequilibrium, the presence of friction and the absence of friction,
the presence of linear motion and the presence of nonlinear motion,
the presence of constant acceleration and the presence of nonconstant
acceleration.
What's your point?
eric gisse
Making shit up again, Phil?
Androcles
=============================================
GR is insulting graffiti on the walls of Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Doppler,
even William of Ockham. Difficult to scrub off but the structure of the
building remains sound. It is art only to Neanderthals such as Phuckwit
Duck who have never seen real art.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm
-- Androcles
BURT
> "philippeb8" <philipp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
General Relativity is an incomplete theory. The strength of gravity is
not in the curve.
Mitch Raemsch
philippeb8
>
> And Newton's 2nd law accepts the presence of equilibrium and
> nonequilibrium, the presence of friction and the absence of friction,
> the presence of linear motion and the presence of nonlinear motion,
> the presence of constant acceleration and the presence of nonconstant
> acceleration.
>
> What's your point?
PD confuses subjective experiments to the fundamental structure of the
Universe.
I forgot mentioning dark matter and time travel in the past which are
both allowed and disallowed according Einstein.
BURT
Backward time was not accepted by Albert Einstein. If your clock goes
slow you can only travel into the Future of the rest of the fast
clocks in the universe.
Dark matter is ruled out.
Mitch Raemsch
philippeb8
> nonequilibrium, the presence of friction and the absence of friction,
> the presence of linear motion and the presence of nonlinear motion,
> the presence of constant acceleration and the presence of nonconstant
> acceleration.
>
> What's your point?
PD confuses subjective experiments with the fundamental structure of
the Universe.
BradGuth
Sam is too smart for himself.
Gravity bends the flow of photons. However, in 3D space, which was
are those photons or quantum string like things moving?
~ BG
philippeb8
>
> Sam is too smart for himself.
>
> Gravity bends the flow of photons. However, in 3D space, which was
> are those photons or quantum string like things moving?
This is 2 photons moving in proximity with each other. The angles
measured in the bottommost label are the difference between the 2
photons relative to the Sun.
PD
> On Nov 23, 5:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And Newton's 2nd law accepts the presence of equilibrium and
> > nonequilibrium, the presence of friction and the absence of friction,
> > the presence of linear motion and the presence of nonlinear motion,
> > the presence of constant acceleration and the presence of nonconstant
> > acceleration.
>
> > What's your point?
>
> PD confuses subjective experiments to the fundamental structure of the
> Universe.
What's subjective about presence of equilibrium and nonequilibrium?
What's subjective about the presence of friction and the absence of
friction?
What's your point?
philippeb8
>
> What's subjective about presence of equilibrium and nonequilibrium?
> What's subjective about the presence of friction and the absence of
> friction?
>
> What's your point?
PD is in an attempt obfuscating clear evidence GR is an art.
Sam Wormley
Phil, you really know how to fool yourself.
Phil Bouchard
>
> Phil, you really know how to fool yourself.
Disprove FR Sam!
PD
Asking you an ordinary question about ordinary, 7th grade physics is
an obfuscation?
PD
Why do you think it is the responsibility of scientists to pay
attention to any crazy idea that pops up and to take the effort to
DISPROVE the crazy idea? Don't you think that would be a monstrous
waste of everyone's time?
Get an experiment funded to test your ideas, Phil.
Phil Bouchard
>
> Why do you think it is the responsibility of scientists to pay
> attention to any crazy idea that pops up and to take the effort to
> DISPROVE the crazy idea? Don't you think that would be a monstrous
> waste of everyone's time?
Well it should be pretty easy after all:
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
experiment can prove me wrong." -- Albert Einstein
Also:
"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
> Get an experiment funded to test your ideas, Phil.
The simulator does that for me.
PD
> PD wrote:
>
> > Why do you think it is the responsibility of scientists to pay
> > attention to any crazy idea that pops up and to take the effort to
> > DISPROVE the crazy idea? Don't you think that would be a monstrous
> > waste of everyone's time?
>
> Well it should be pretty easy after all:
>
> "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single
> experiment can prove me wrong." -- Albert Einstein
But FR is not an experiment, and it proves nothing wrong.
You claim that FR is more *likeable* than GR. That doesn't prove it
wrong by any stretch. All it demonstrates is that what you like is not
what scientists like.
>
> Also:
>
> "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
Are you telling me you don't know how radio works?
>
> > Get an experiment funded to test your ideas, Phil.
>
> The simulator does that for me.
Well, as has been pointed out, Phil, a simulation is not an
experiment.
The new movie Avatar is a simulation. So are video games. Neither of
them have any connection with reality.
Phil Bouchard
>
> Asking you an ordinary question about ordinary, 7th grade physics is
> an obfuscation?
Well you see the absence of friction in one experiment does not prevent
you from calculating it.
PD
Calculating the friction that is not there?
How about calculating the effect on the trajectory of an object due to
the friction that isn't there?
Please calculate the friction that isn't there, in the orbit of the
Moon, Phil.
Then tell me about what you think relativity can't calculate.
Phil Bouchard
>
> But FR is not an experiment, and it proves nothing wrong.
> You claim that FR is more *likeable* than GR. That doesn't prove it
> wrong by any stretch. All it demonstrates is that what you like is not
> what scientists like.
What you like doesn't count.
[...]
> Well, as has been pointed out, Phil, a simulation is not an
> experiment.
> The new movie Avatar is a simulation. So are video games. Neither of
> them have any connection with reality.
The experiments were made over the last century as Doug clearly pointed
out. The simulator calculates what was observed.
BURT
Einstein questioned his photon. He questioned what he won the Nobel
Prize for. He said he couild not reconcile a particle with the wave. I
believe he was right to. It is only a spherical wave.
Mitch Raemsch
Phil Bouchard
>
> Calculating the friction that is not there?
>
> How about calculating the effect on the trajectory of an object due to
> the friction that isn't there?
>
> Please calculate the friction that isn't there, in the orbit of the
> Moon, Phil.
Sure, you'll get a coefficient of friction to be 0.
> Then tell me about what you think relativity can't calculate.
- GR has a finite precision
- GR cannot predict the faith of the Universe. You see, it depends on a
cosmological constant which is either wrong or right.
- GR disagrees with faster-than-light tunneling effects
PD
> PD wrote:
>
> > But FR is not an experiment, and it proves nothing wrong.
> > You claim that FR is more *likeable* than GR. That doesn't prove it
> > wrong by any stretch. All it demonstrates is that what you like is not
> > what scientists like.
>
> What you like doesn't count.
For whom? You? That's fine.
>
> [...]
>
> > Well, as has been pointed out, Phil, a simulation is not an
> > experiment.
> > The new movie Avatar is a simulation. So are video games. Neither of
> > them have any connection with reality.
>
> The experiments were made over the last century as Doug clearly pointed
> out.
> The simulator calculates what was observed.
No, it doesn't. You've already said it gets an answer different than
what is actually observed. GR gets the same answer as what is actually
observed. This should be perceived as a problem.
PD
> PD wrote:
>
> > Calculating the friction that is not there?
>
> > How about calculating the effect on the trajectory of an object due to
> > the friction that isn't there?
>
> > Please calculate the friction that isn't there, in the orbit of the
> > Moon, Phil.
>
> Sure, you'll get a coefficient of friction to be 0.
Please calculate the friction that isn't there, Phil. Show your work.
>
> > Then tell me about what you think relativity can't calculate.
>
> - GR has a finite precision
What makes you think that? The calculations are exact.
> - GR cannot predict the faith of the Universe. You see, it depends on a
> cosmological constant which is either wrong or right.
Predict the *fate* of the universe? Is that what you're trying to say,
Phil?
Yes, it can. All you need is correct input data as to the total mass
density of the universe.
Like all physical laws, you need the correct input data.
Newton's 2nd law can't calculate the orbit of Mars without knowing the
mass of the sun, either. You need the right input data.
> - GR disagrees with faster-than-light tunneling effects
First of all, there are no such things as faster-than-light tunneling
effects. Tunneling is a quantum phenomenon that doesn't involve
*travel* through a barrier.
Secondly, GR makes no claims that quantum mechanics is wrong.
Phil Bouchard
>
> For whom? You? That's fine.
From the facts.
> No, it doesn't. You've already said it gets an answer different than
> what is actually observed. GR gets the same answer as what is actually
> observed. This should be perceived as a problem.
GR light bending was tested once in 1919 with obscure conditions and
debatable precision. FR can be tested anywhere and at anytime.
Phil Bouchard
[...]
> What makes you think that? The calculations are exact.
FR is better.
> Predict the *fate* of the universe? Is that what you're trying to say,
> Phil?
> Yes, it can. All you need is correct input data as to the total mass
> density of the universe.
> Like all physical laws, you need the correct input data.
> Newton's 2nd law can't calculate the orbit of Mars without knowing the
> mass of the sun, either. You need the right input data.
No you can't because you depend on an arbitrary cosmological constant to
make things work.
> First of all, there are no such things as faster-than-light tunneling
> effects.
Says who?
> Tunneling is a quantum phenomenon that doesn't involve
> *travel* through a barrier.
Oh yeah, that's where comes in the wormholes.
[...]
eric gisse
> PD wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> What makes you think that? The calculations are exact.
>
> FR is better.
Make a prediction for the value of the Lense-Thirring effect, please.
[...]
>> Tunneling is a quantum phenomenon that doesn't involve
>> *travel* through a barrier.
>
> Oh yeah, that's where comes in the wormholes.
>
> [...]
Perhaps you shouldn't read about physics from comic books?
PD
> PD wrote:
>
> > For whom? You? That's fine.
>
> From the facts.
Facts don't "like" theories.
>
> > No, it doesn't. You've already said it gets an answer different than
> > what is actually observed. GR gets the same answer as what is actually
> > observed. This should be perceived as a problem.
>
> GR light bending was tested once
It's been tested multiple times over the last 90 years.
> in 1919 with obscure conditions and
> debatable precision. FR can be tested anywhere and at anytime.
So can GR.
PD
> PD wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > What makes you think that? The calculations are exact.
>
> FR is better.
What's better than exact?
>
> > Predict the *fate* of the universe? Is that what you're trying to say,
> > Phil?
> > Yes, it can. All you need is correct input data as to the total mass
> > density of the universe.
> > Like all physical laws, you need the correct input data.
> > Newton's 2nd law can't calculate the orbit of Mars without knowing the
> > mass of the sun, either. You need the right input data.
>
> No you can't because you depend on an arbitrary cosmological constant to
> make things work.
That's part of the input data. It comes from a measurement of dark
energy.
>
> > First of all, there are no such things as faster-than-light tunneling
> > effects.
>
> Says who?
Says nature.
>
> > Tunneling is a quantum phenomenon that doesn't involve
> > *travel* through a barrier.
>
> Oh yeah, that's where comes in the wormholes.
Wormholes aren't faster-than-light tunneling.
>
> [...]
Phil Bouchard
>
> Facts don't "like" theories.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!" -- Albert Einstein
> It's been tested multiple times over the last 90 years.
And only the successful ones were revealed.
> So can GR.
Wanna bet?
PD
> PD wrote:
>
> > Facts don't "like" theories.
>
> "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts!" -- Albert Einstein
That's amusing, but he never did that. Didn't have to.
>
> > It's been tested multiple times over the last 90 years.
>
> And only the successful ones were revealed.
Ah, so there is a vast, hidden mound of counterevidence that you are
sure is there but of course can't cite because it's been hidden.
>
> > So can GR.
>
> Wanna bet?
Yup.
BURT
I challenge anyone to answer this question for sure: what wave is the
photon in the electric or the magnetic?
I am in the aether waiting for the answer.
Mitch Raemsch
Phil Bouchard
[...]
> Ah, so there is a vast, hidden mound of counterevidence that you are
> sure is there but of course can't cite because it's been hidden.
Yup.
>> Wanna bet?
>
> Yup.
Alright, let's get it on. Gravitational time dilation and light bending.
BURT
Slow time-aether means a slow C metric. The space curve creates
geometry of motion or a parabola for light bending past the Sun in the
sky.
Mitch Raemsch
eric gisse
> PD wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Ah, so there is a vast, hidden mound of counterevidence that you are
>> sure is there but of course can't cite because it's been hidden.
>
> Yup.
If it is hidden, how do you know it is there?
Moreover, why have you not performed the observations yourself yet? If you
are actually interested in the subject and truly believe what you are
saying, you should be able to get funding from the numerous people on this
newsgroup who think evidence against relativity is being suppressed.
>
>>> Wanna bet?
>>
>> Yup.
>
> Alright, let's get it on. Gravitational time dilation and light bending.
Throw in Shapiro delay, Lense-Thirring precession, geodetic precession, and
the Nordtelvdt effect. Let's see FR's prediction on all that.
Phil Bouchard
>
> If it is hidden, how do you know it is there?
By induction.
[...]
> Throw in Shapiro delay, Lense-Thirring precession, geodetic precession, and
> the Nordtelvdt effect. Let's see FR's prediction on all that.
The frame-dragging effects is a nice tab I can add to the simulator, but
the oval shape of the planet might not be present.
eric gisse
> eric gisse wrote:
>>
>> If it is hidden, how do you know it is there?
>
> By induction.
Try a different word, Phil. Perhaps you might wish to try 'inference'. Then
explain what the hell you are talking about.
>
> [...]
>
>> Throw in Shapiro delay, Lense-Thirring precession, geodetic precession,
>> and the Nordtelvdt effect. Let's see FR's prediction on all that.
>
> The frame-dragging effects is a nice tab I can add to the simulator, but
> the oval shape of the planet might not be present.
The shape of the planet has nothing to do with it, Phil. Try to keep up.
Phil Bouchard
>
> Try a different word, Phil. Perhaps you might wish to try 'inference'. Then
> explain what the hell you are talking about.
No because inference is a less accurate explanation.
> The shape of the planet has nothing to do with it, Phil. Try to keep up.
To make it even more precise, yes it does.
Sam Wormley
> I have correctly implemented the bending of light calculations
> according to Finite Relativism. The perihelion precession of Mercury
> remains constant (2.49e-7 rad/cycle) like it was demonstrated before
> and the discrepancy of the bending of light is of the order of 1e-7
> rad!
> http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr.exe
>
> The discrepancy found in 1919 was of 4.2e-6 rad:
> http://web.mit.edu/6.055/notes/bending-of-light.pdf
>
> I do not use the same conditions but we can already see its order to
> be of the same magnitude.
>
>
> -Phil
Phil, if this "Finite Relativism" can do anything, it should
be able to calculate the time dilation of a satellite clock in
orbit about the earth at at altitude of 202 km above MSL in
an orbit with eccentricity = 0.
So far you have not demonstrated that "Finite Relativism" can
calculate ANYTHING correctly.
Here's a copy of the review about your book on the subject.
The book you self-published is a perfect example of how you have
fooled yourself in to thinking the are shortcuts to education.
Customer Reviews
Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof: General Relativity Reegineered
http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Relativism-Dark-Matter-Disproof/dp/1441453105/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
'My name appears in the Acknowledgments of this book, therefore, I should
contribute a review. "Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof" is an
attempt by the author to disprove special relativity, Dark Matter and to
solve many of what the author perceives as "dilemmas" such as singularities,
black hole behaviors and natural worm holes. Unfortunately, the author
demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of special or general
relativity or the underlying mathematics of either theory. The author
confuses the concepts of acceleration and velocity in the abstract and
goes downhill from there. One can open the book to almost any page and
find the conceptual arguments and calculations wrong. In a section on GPS,
the author plots gravitational time dilation as a function of altitude
which is totally contradicted by general relativity predictions and
observations of time dilation in earth satellite clocks. I cannot
recommend this book to anyone, even as an example of how not to write
about science. -- Sam Wormley, Adj. Prof. Astronomy'
Phil Bouchard
[...]
> That's part of the input data. It comes from a measurement of dark
> energy.
Which is hypothetical and invented by Einstein.
>> Says who?
>
> Says nature.
Says you.
> Wormholes aren't faster-than-light tunneling.
So you officially believe in wormholes.
Phil Bouchard
[...]
> observations of time dilation in earth satellite clocks. I cannot
> recommend this book to anyone, even as an example of how not to write
> about science. -- Sam Wormley, Adj. Prof. Astronomy'
You cannot recommend it because you do not understand it.
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Customer Reviews
>> Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof: General Relativity Reegineered
>> http://www.amazon.com/Finite-Relativism-Dark-Matter-Disproof/dp/1441453105/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
>>
>> 'My name appears in the Acknowledgments of this book, therefore, I should
>> contribute a review. "Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof" is an
>> attempt by the author to disprove special relativity, Dark Matter and to
>> solve many of what the author perceives as "dilemmas" such as singularities,
>> black hole behaviors and natural worm holes. Unfortunately, the author
>> demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of special or general
>> relativity or the underlying mathematics of either theory. The author
>> confuses the concepts of acceleration and velocity in the abstract and
>> goes downhill from there. One can open the book to almost any page and
>> find the conceptual arguments and calculations wrong. In a section on GPS,
>> the author plots gravitational time dilation as a function of altitude
>> which is totally contradicted by general relativity predictions and
I agree, Phil, it is almost impossible to make sense of your garbage.
PD
> PD wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > That's part of the input data. It comes from a measurement of dark
> > energy.
>
> Which is hypothetical and invented by Einstein.
Dark energy wasn't, no.
You're right, we only have the footprints of dark energy and haven't
captured the beast yet.
If you see footprints of a tiger in the woods, do you conclude that
someone has made up a fictional tiger?
>
> >> Says who?
>
> > Says nature.
>
> Says you.
>
> > Wormholes aren't faster-than-light tunneling.
>
> So you officially believe in wormholes.
How does telling you that wormholes AREN'T something you claim they
are, imply anything about what I believe or don't believe. If I tell
you that extraterrestrial planets are not cities made of paper and
clay, does that tell you that I believe in extraterrestrial planets?
PD
> PD wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Ah, so there is a vast, hidden mound of counterevidence that you are
> > sure is there but of course can't cite because it's been hidden.
>
> Yup.
Ah, lovely, the foam on the lips of a conspiracy goon. Can't cite it
but you know it's there.
>
> >> Wanna bet?
>
> > Yup.
>
> Alright, let's get it on. Gravitational time dilation and light bending.
You think that GR can't calculate gravitational time dilation and
light bending? Whatever gave you that idea?
PD
PD
> eric gisse wrote:
>
> > If it is hidden, how do you know it is there?
>
> By induction.
I think you misspelled "delusion".
Phil Bouchard
>
> Dark energy wasn't, no.
>
> You're right, we only have the footprints of dark energy and haven't
> captured the beast yet.
> If you see footprints of a tiger in the woods, do you conclude that
> someone has made up a fictional tiger?
I conclude you just got eaten by a tiger and thus I can safely walk around.
> How does telling you that wormholes AREN'T something you claim they
> are, imply anything about what I believe or don't believe. If I tell
> you that extraterrestrial planets are not cities made of paper and
> clay, does that tell you that I believe in extraterrestrial planets?
You know they are because you know what they're being made of.
Phil Bouchard
>
> Ah, lovely, the foam on the lips of a conspiracy goon. Can't cite it
> but you know it's there.
Betting against GR is a better use of my time.
> You think that GR can't calculate gravitational time dilation and
> light bending? Whatever gave you that idea?
Its square root approach.
eric gisse
Wow, you still have a problem with simple algebra?
xxein
> philippeb8 wrote:
> > I have correctly implemented the bending of light calculations
> > according to Finite Relativism. The perihelion precession of Mercury
> > remains constant (2.49e-7 rad/cycle) like it was demonstrated before
> > and the discrepancy of the bending of light is of the order of 1e-7
> > rad!
> >http://www.fornux.com/personal/philippe/fr/fr.exe
>
> > The discrepancy found in 1919 was of 4.2e-6 rad:
> >http://web.mit.edu/6.055/notes/bending-of-light.pdf
>
> > I do not use the same conditions but we can already see its order to
> > be of the same magnitude.
>
> > -Phil
>
> Phil, if this "Finite Relativism" can do anything, it should
> be able to calculate the time dilation of a satellite clock in
> orbit about the earth at at altitude of 202 km above MSL in
> an orbit with eccentricity = 0.
>
> So far you have not demonstrated that "Finite Relativism" can
> calculate ANYTHING correctly.
>
> Here's a copy of the review about your book on the subject.
>
> The book you self-published is a perfect example of how you have
> fooled yourself in to thinking the are shortcuts to education.
>
> Customer Reviews
>
> 'My name appears in the Acknowledgments of this book, therefore, I should
> contribute a review. "Finite Relativism And Dark Matter Disproof" is an
> attempt by the author to disprove special relativity, Dark Matter and to
> solve many of what the author perceives as "dilemmas" such as singularities,
> black hole behaviors and natural worm holes. Unfortunately, the author
> demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of special or general
> relativity or the underlying mathematics of either theory. The author
> confuses the concepts of acceleration and velocity in the abstract and
> goes downhill from there. One can open the book to almost any page and
> find the conceptual arguments and calculations wrong. In a section on GPS,
> the author plots gravitational time dilation as a function of altitude
> which is totally contradicted by general relativity predictions and
> observations of time dilation in earth satellite clocks. I cannot
> recommend this book to anyone, even as an example of how not to write
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein:
"In a section on GPS, the author plots gravitational time dilation as
a function of altitude which is totally contradicted by general
relativity predictions and observations of time dilation in earth
satellite clocks."
Gravitational time dilation IS a function of altitude --- but also a
function of velocity for satellites. I don't know what Phil has put
forward in his book but I can show it to you.
Assume 3 givens. Lorentz' time dilation as a function of velocity,
Kepplerian orbit mechanics and a nominal radius of the Earth of
6378170 meters.
The GPS system satellites orbit 2x per sidereal day. Orbital period =
43198 secs. Orbital velocity (Ov) = 3871.4741303174 m/s. Altitude =
26617063.0508624 meters fron the Earth's center. So far?
(1-(2*M/r))^.5. Look familiar? M and r are expressed in meters. It's
gravitational time dilation. How about (2*M*c^2/r)^.5? That's escape
velocity (Ev). A velocity wrt an altitude!
What is such a satellite's unadjusted clockrate? How does it compare
with a clockrate on the Earth's surface? Let's do a simple little
unorthodox math and figure that out, huh?
First of all, and to be consistant, there is no frame dragging going
on here at all. Just velocities.
GPS clockrate = clockrate for Lorentz velocity of ((Ov^2) + (Ev^2))^.5
(= 6705.58989389825 m/s) = .999999999749849 secs/sec.
Earth observer clockrate is the same except that the orbit velocity is
replaced with the rotational velocity (463.855086238872 m/s) yielding .
999999999302857 secs/sec. The difference is 4.46991998970248E-10 secs/
sec. So far?
Multiply by the 86396 seconds in a sidereal day and you get your
3.86183207430336E-05 second per day difference. Not too hard, is it?
Of course the Sun, Moon and Jupiter have their say in all this also
but what I give is just an idealized celestial mechanic of 2 bodies
(point particle and mass). But this puts definite restrictions on how
light can orbit a black hole.
Light can only circularly orbit (eccentricity = |0|) a black hole at
3M. Do my math to see that ((Ov^2) + (Ev^2))^.5 = c. The question
then becomes "Is c not a constant? Why is it orbiting at only
173085256.327319 m/s?". Ans: Because it is moving across the
stream. It is the same reason we had to give it twice the lightpath
for bending. At 3M, light is crossing a 244779516.944918 m/s stream.
A stream of what? Why not a curvature of spacetime like we chose to
believe? Because we chose wrongly.
Sam Wormley
See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
BURT
The strength of gravity slows light down by time-aether.
Mitch Raemsch
xxein
> xxeinwrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: I'm familiar with Neil Ashby. At least he called a double
correction an error before GPS was fully developed. I saw it in
retrospect with my work. But he does not see it as clearly as he
could.
As we have progressed in a general science, new dicoveries are
assimilated and used to promote the general welfare of all. But this
Einsteinian concept is reluctant to change. It wants new discovery to
be a part of it's concept without the changing of itself.
This Horganish process and hubris dominates this class of science. It
puts a false limit on an otherwise usable logic.
I don't know why you cited Ashby.
BURT
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> xxein: I'm familiar with Neil Ashby. At least he called a double
> correction an error before GPS was fully developed. I saw it in
> retrospect with my work. But he does not see it as clearly as he
> could.
>
> As we have progressed in a general science, new dicoveries are
> assimilated and used to promote the general welfare of all. But this
> Einsteinian concept is reluctant to change. It wants new discovery to
> be a part of it's concept without the changing of itself.
>
> This Horganish process and hubris dominates this class of science. It
> puts a false limit on an otherwise usable logic.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Science hasn't gone very far now. It has the wrong idea. From Galileo
it is only 400 years old.
What it will be like in a million years is the question I want to
know.
Mitch Raemsch
Sam Wormley
I suggest you calculate the time dilation of a satellite clock from
the perspective of a ground observer for a satellite in roughly a
circular orbit of 150 km above MSL and see if it agrees with Ashby.
BURT
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > xxein: I'm familiar with Neil Ashby. At least he called a double
> > correction an error before GPS was fully developed. I saw it in
> > retrospect with my work. But he does not see it as clearly as he
> > could.
>
> > As we have progressed in a general science, new dicoveries are
> > assimilated and used to promote the general welfare of all. But this
> > Einsteinian concept is reluctant to change. It wants new discovery to
> > be a part of it's concept without the changing of itself.
>
> > This Horganish process and hubris dominates this class of science. It
> > puts a false limit on an otherwise usable logic.
>
> > I don't know why you cited Ashby.
>
> I suggest you calculate the time dilation of a satellite clock from
> the perspective of a ground observer for a satellite in roughly a
>
> - Show quoted text -
There are Two times or Aether rates. Gravity is the one force with its
own time. The other time is from motion or flow.
Mitch Raemsch
PD
> PD wrote:
>
> > Ah, lovely, the foam on the lips of a conspiracy goon. Can't cite it
> > but you know it's there.
>
> Betting against GR is a better use of my time.
Betting against it, on the grounds of counterevidence you can't cite
but you know it's there.
>
> > You think that GR can't calculate gravitational time dilation and
> > light bending? Whatever gave you that idea?
>
> Its square root approach.
What makes you think a square root is not exact?
PD
Waves don't have to be *in* anything. But in electromagnetic
radiation, both the electric and magnetic fields manifest wave
solutions.
PD
> PD wrote:
>
> > Dark energy wasn't, no.
>
> > You're right, we only have the footprints of dark energy and haven't
> > captured the beast yet.
> > If you see footprints of a tiger in the woods, do you conclude that
> > someone has made up a fictional tiger?
>
> I conclude you just got eaten by a tiger and thus I can safely walk around.
It's just important to you to be the last one babbling, isn't it?
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Waves need to be in space. But the photon needs to be in either the
electric or magentic aether wave.
Which wave is the photon in? I am waiting for the answer.
Mitch Raemsch
PD
No, it doesn't.
BURT
Then where is it?
Mitch Raemsch
>
>
>
> > Which wave is the photon in? I am waiting for the answer.
Phil Bouchard
>
> Betting against it, on the grounds of counterevidence you can't cite
> but you know it's there.
That's my problem if I'm willing to bet without this idiotic evidence.
> What makes you think a square root is not exact?
You take for granted this is a simple algorithm because it is
implemented in your calculator. If you don't then it looks like this:
;Variables
rem dd 0 ;
root dd 0 ;
divisor dd 0 ;
SquareRoot proc near
push bp ;save registers
push di ;
push si ;
push dx ;
push cx ;
push bx ;
lea bp,rem ;2-4
mov word ptr [bp],0 ;zero out REM variable
mov word ptr [bp+2],0 ;
lea bp,root ;6-8
mov word ptr [bp],0 ;zero out ROOT variable
mov word ptr [bp+2],0 ;
lea bp,divisor ;10-12
mov word ptr [bp],0 ;zero out DIVISOR variable
mov word ptr [bp+2],0 ;
mov si,10h ; for (i=0; i<16; i++)
sqrt_001: lea bp,root ;root <<= 1;
mov dx,word ptr [bp+2] ;
mov ax,word ptr [bp] ;
add ax,ax ;
rcl dx,1 ;
mov word ptr [bp+2],dx ;
mov word ptr [bp],ax ;
lea bp,rem ;rem = ((rem << 2) + (a >> 30))
mov dx,word ptr [bp+2] ;
mov ax,word ptr [bp] ;
mov cl,2 ;
call LeftShift ;
push ax ;
push dx ;
mov dx,word ptr [di+2] ;
mov ax,word ptr [di] ;
mov cl,30 ;
call RightShift ;
pop bx ;
pop cx ;
add cx,ax ;
adc bx,dx ;
mov word ptr [bp+2],bx ;
mov word ptr [bp],cx ;
mov cl,2 ;a <<= 2;
mov dx,word ptr [di+2] ;
mov ax,word ptr [di] ;
call LeftShift ;
mov word ptr [di+2],dx ;
mov word ptr [di],ax ;
lea bp,root ;divisor = (root<<1) + 1
mov dx,word ptr [bp+2] ;
mov ax,word ptr [bp] ;
add ax,ax ;
rcl dx,1 ;
add ax,1 ;
adc dx,0 ;
lea bp,divisor ;
mov word ptr [bp+2],dx ;
mov word ptr [bp],ax ;
lea bp,rem ;if (divisor <= rem)
cmp dx,word ptr [bp+2] ;
ja short sqrt_003 ;
jne short sqrt_002 ;
cmp ax,word ptr [bp] ;
ja short sqrt_003 ;
sqrt_002: lea bp,divisor ;rem -= divisor
mov dx,word ptr [bp+2] ;
mov ax,word ptr [bp] ;
lea bp,rem ;
sub word ptr [bp],ax ;
sbb word ptr [bp+2],dx ;
lea bp,root ;root ++
add word ptr [bp],1 ;
adc word ptr [bp+2],0 ;
sqrt_003: dec si ;do loop until 0
jz sqrt_004 ;zero?, were done
jmp sqrt_001 ;no, repeat until 0
sqrt_004: lea bp,root ;root ++
mov ax,[bp] ;answer in AX now
pop bx ;restore registers
pop cx ;
pop dx ;
pop si ;
pop di ;
pop bp ;
ret ;
SquareRoot endp
Phil Bouchard
>
> It's just important to you to be the last one babbling, isn't it?
I know it's important to me knowing you know you're not right.
eric gisse
> PD wrote:
>>
>> Betting against it, on the grounds of counterevidence you can't cite
>> but you know it's there.
>
> That's my problem if I'm willing to bet without this idiotic evidence.
When was the last time you went to a library?
>
>> What makes you think a square root is not exact?
>
> You take for granted this is a simple algorithm because it is
> implemented in your calculator. If you don't then it looks like this:
How does posting assembly code support your argument?
PD
> PD wrote:
>
> > Betting against it, on the grounds of counterevidence you can't cite
> > but you know it's there.
>
> That's my problem if I'm willing to bet without this idiotic evidence.
Yes, it is indeed a problem, and yes indeed it is your problem. You
have a number of problems.
>
> > What makes you think a square root is not exact?
>
> You take for granted this is a simple algorithm because it is
> implemented in your calculator.
You didn't answer my question. What makes you think a square root is
not exact?
Does how the answer is arrived at in a binary device with a set
precision tell you whether a mathematical expression is exact or not?
PD
The photon is a quantized electromagnetic field, and in the
electromagnetic field both the magnetic and electric fields have wave
solutions.
PD
Babbling last is how you know I'm not right?
Simple Simon
No. It's how he know's that you know that you're not right. ;-)
BURT
The photon is particle that must be in either the elctric or magnetic
wave.
Which wave is it in?
Mitch Raemsch
alie...@gmail.com
There are no "particles", silly.
BTW, where are your two Nobels?
Mark L. Fergerson
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Prove there are no matter particles Mark. You are dumb.
Mitch Raemsch
alie...@gmail.com
> On Nov 29, 2:05 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
(snip)
> > There are no "particles", silly.
>
> > BTW, where are your two Nobels?
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Prove there are no matter particles Mark. You are dumb.
There are only two kinds of "matter particles"; composite (hadrons,
pions, etc) and fundamental (electrons, quarks, and their
antiparticles). All the composites are collections of fundamentals.
All the fundamentals have zero radius- they do not occupy space.
All of them have been shown to be subject to wave diffraction, hence
there are no "particles", only waves.
Where are your two Nobels?
Mark L. Fergerson
BURT
Particles are points mathematically infinitely small. This is a point
energy in the aether. All particles have surrrounding fields either
Electric or Strong that have energy when they are bonded. The aether
flows over these particles with their fields that can either have
energy of bond or not.
Mitch Raemsch
xxein
> xxeinwrote:
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >xxein: I'm familiar with Neil Ashby. At least he called a double
> > correction an error before GPS was fully developed. I saw it in
> > retrospect with my work. But he does not see it as clearly as he
> > could.
>
> > As we have progressed in a general science, new dicoveries are
> > assimilated and used to promote the general welfare of all. But this
> > Einsteinian concept is reluctant to change. It wants new discovery to
> > be a part of it's concept without the changing of itself.
>
> > This Horganish process and hubris dominates this class of science. It
> > puts a false limit on an otherwise usable logic.
>
> > I don't know why you cited Ashby.
>
> I suggest you calculate the time dilation of a satellite clock from
> the perspective of a ground observer for a satellite in roughly a
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: I got 2.79910996572319E-05 secs a sidereal day. But what does
150 km (MSL) have to do with the 20238.8930508624 km (MSL) of GPS? I
assume that MSL is mean sea-level.
Sam Wormley
I was asking about the time dilation of a satellite clock orbiting the
earth at 150 km MSL (6528.1 km radius). I get a fractional frequency
shift of ~2E10. Nothing todo with GPS.
Sam Wormley
>
>
CORRECTION -2.8E10
Phil Bouchard
>
> Babbling last is how you know I'm not right?
There is no way you can be right and everybody knows that.
"With fame I become more and more stupid, which of course is a very
common phenomenon." -- Albert Einstein
Phil Bouchard
>
> When was the last time you went to a library?
Good question.
> How does posting assembly code support your argument?
1) All numbers are not perfect squares.
2) The assembly code shows how complex this operation is.