Finite Relativism (FR) book
in [Relativity]
|
From: Phil Bouchard on 16 Dec 2009 13:16 Greg Neill wrote: > > Proving once again that you don't know what a 'law' is > in science. It's a fundamental principle. I'm adding on top of it it cannot reduce input numbers to an irrational output number.
From: Phil Bouchard on 16 Dec 2009 13:26 Greg Neill wrote: > > Another non sequitur. And this guy thinks he can sell > a book! I've been here for a year and not only nobody disproved FR but nobody is willing gambling with me. FR covers: - the perihelion precession - the bending of light - the unnecessary needfulness of dark matter / energy - particle momentum - the accelerated expansion of the universe - faster-than-light phenomenons All you have to do is understand calculus and read about it. If you don't then I see you're not the man of the house and perhaps you'll be interested in the following book: http://amzn.com/0061939897
From: Greg Neill on 16 Dec 2009 13:58 Phil Bouchard wrote: > Greg Neill wrote: >> >> Your theories are sooo provincial (and I use the term >> 'theory' rather loosely). >> >> Suppose an observer happened to travel to another solar >> system. Would the fudge factors from back home still work? >> >> I'll answer for you: No. The observer would have to use >> GR to determine the correct answer locally and then >> derive all new fudge factors for your theory from that. > > Wrong answer already because the scaling factor used for local solar > systems is defined by the spiral arm of the galaxy. Who said the solar system would be local? See? Everything's a special case with your theory. Move to the Moon and you need new fudge factors. Move to an orbit about Jupiter and there's more. Heck, move your satellite to the opposite side of the Earth and you need to redo all your calculations. In sum, your theory is useless as a general tool. > > In fact this is what the initial $10,000 bet against PD was about but > within the solar system itself. So I reduced it to $5 but Doug and PD > still bailed. Riiiight. Say on, MacDuff.
From: Greg Neill on 16 Dec 2009 13:58 Phil Bouchard wrote: > Greg Neill wrote: >> >> Proving once again that you don't know what a 'law' is >> in science. > > It's a fundamental principle. I'm adding on top of it it cannot reduce > input numbers to an irrational output number. Point proven. You're scientifically illiterate.
From: Greg Neill on 16 Dec 2009 14:44
Phil Bouchard wrote: > > If I am a liar then it should be easy for you making $10,000. > Are those FR dollars that change value whenever it suits you? |