Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Relativity is wrong...
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 571 of 633 (531654)
10-19-2009 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 568 by Smooth Operator
10-19-2009 3:36 AM


Another general post here, simply because you just can't keep a good retard down! He will come back and hit you with his stupidity over and over again!
Thanks again. And I will come back to point out why you are mistaken and being deceitful, in spite of your cunty attitude.
If my first link was "bougs" somehow, that who did Oni-moron find it int he first place?
It was bogus because it was presenting false numbers.
Creation-wiki claimed:
quote:
Yet a California observatory measured the optical Martian parallax during the 2003 opposition and arrived at an AU centered on 151.6 million kilometers, one percent larger that the radar value.
Yet the link for the California Observatory, which is who creation-wiki is using as a source, doesn't show any of that.
In fact, the Cali Obseratory link gives results for 2004, not 2003.
The creation-wiki page pulled those numbers out of their ass.
And another thing, the reason I only provided the picture only link, is because evrybod has already seen the original article
Perhaps, but I suspect you did it because right under the picture it explains clearly that "the error will diminish and the resulting solar parallax will tend to the true value of 8.794."
As the Observatory explains:
quote:
However, as the number of usable observations increases, I expect that the error will diminish and the resulting solar parallax will tend to the true value of 8.794. Therefore, it's important to submit your own observational data.
So, if we go back to your Message 551, when you say:
Smooth writes:
As you can see here, the radio signals that are sent to other planets do not match with calculations from other methods. Every method you use, you get a different number, for the distance to other planets. Not only that, but with time, over the interval of one yesr, the distance changes incrementally. Therefore it's wrong.
You are wrong. You speak nonsense, and your links do not support your position because the numbers given by creation-wiki are bogus, fake, made-up.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 568 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-19-2009 3:36 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 572 of 633 (531675)
10-19-2009 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 569 by Smooth Operator
10-19-2009 3:44 AM


Re: Your Model Your Terms - Still Doesn't Add Up.
Straggler writes:
If the forces specific to your model cancel each other out perfectly how do you know any of them are actually there?
Because we see their effects. We can see the anisotropic magnetic radiation coming from space. Which is best described as a rotation within a sphere. Therefore, the forces should exist.
And yet the forces are undetectable. Because they cancel each other out perfectly. At all points in your spehere. Despite the fact you can only assert this rather than show it by any calculation of forces.
And what about the Barbour and Berttoti paper I showed you weeks ago? Did you already forget about it? Or didn't you even wan to notice it?
I did. But since then you have introduced a host of other forces which arbitrarily act in exactly the ways you need them to behave to sustain your silly model whilst remaining entirely undetectable as forces in themselves.
So the Earth sits resolutely at the centre of your speherically shelled universe. Held in place against all of the ever changing gravitational forces acting upon it by the "Lense-Thirring" force acting towards the centre of the shell. A force we cannot detect acting on the Earth or anything else despite it being able to overwhelm all gravitational forces no matter how massive.
In addition each and every body in the universe no matter where it is in your shell or how massive it is acts exactly as it would without any gravitational effect from your shell. Making the gravitational effects of your shell undetectable. Despite the fact you also claim that it is the gravitational effect of the shell that stops all of the matter being gravitationally attracted to form a massive clump over time.
The contradictions and baseless contrived ad-hoc assertions here are mounting up SO. Can you see them yet?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-19-2009 3:44 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 575 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-25-2009 6:24 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 573 of 633 (531736)
10-19-2009 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 570 by Smooth Operator
10-19-2009 4:04 AM


1.) If the person is outside our solar system, you should better tell him that you house is not in the Andromed galaxy, but here on Earth. The farther away the person is from your house, the more specifc you have to be.
That's debatable. If I'm giving directions to get ther, then sure, and if I ever meet someone who is outside of my solar system, I'll do so. On the other hand, If I'm talking extemporaneously with someone in some dive bar on the other side of the horsehead Nebula, it doesn't matter exactly where the sun and the solar system are, I can simply say that the sun is the center because everything is going around the sun, and nothing about outside the solar system need be mentioned.
2.) The other reason is that gravity has nothing to do with this example. It doesn't matter where the person is located if he wants to find your house, the gravity will still affect Earth the same way. Because all the positions relative to one another are the same, and gravitational forces are the same. Unlike if all other galaxies didn't exist. There would be a repositioning in our solar sistem.
But the effects of the gravity of other objects is negligible. As you've said yourself, the force of gravity is inversly proportional to the square of the distance. Unless you can show that something is close enough to make any difference, then I can reaosnably exclude them, especially when we don't see any perturbation of orbits caused by something on the other side pulling.
And why is that!? Why do not local equations hold on general level? If gravity is the same thing here on Earth, as in the Andromeda glaaxy, than equations must give the same results. The only other explanation is that gravity is not universal. And that is why it works fine only near the Earth.
False. Extremely false. As you should know, Relativity has a lot more variables than Newton's equations, but when you solve Relativity for the Earth's surface, you find that most of the variables cancel out and you're left with Newton's Equations. The reason is, Neton was looking at a specific place and isn't going to notice when there are other variables that cancel each other out. For example, 1+3=4, but 1+3+5-2+3-6=4 as well. DOes that mean the first equation is wrong? No, it just means the other numbers cancel each other out. So, if we find out there are other variables in Universal Gravitation, it will turn out, I gurantee it, that if you solve for smaller distances, you'll find that those variuables cancel out and we're left with Relativity.
But your explanation is flawed. Please explain W-H-Y does gravity work only on local level, and not in gneral. If it is not because of it being non-universal, than what else could it be. Are the equations wrong? If so, than your whole model goes to pieces...
You're now misunderstanding me...your comprehension problems are showing. Gravitation works perfectly on all levels, but being imperfect beings, our current understanding of how gravity works could be flawed. We've only recently had the ability to measure gravity's expression on such large distances to such a degree of accuracy, so it's no surprise that there are things we didn't anticipate.
Oh, well than, that's great to hear. You do know what this means don't you? It means your model of the universe is DEAD! It does not work. It means you ahve no mathematical model for the movements of the astronomical bodies except near the Earth. Which means you have nothing.
It has nothing to do with Earth. It has to do with vast distances. Any gravitational bodies closer to each other than the distances between local groups of galaxies will behave as Relativity says they should. It's only when the distance between them exceeds that level that it starts to do weird things.
For few examples, whe have extra fast stars that move faster than they should, if gravity was universal. The Pioneer anomaly that shows that the satelites are slowing down faster than they would if gravity was universal. Flyby anomaly where spacecrafts experience more gravitational pull than they should. Anomalous increases of the AU where planetary orbits are expanding faster than if gravity was universal. And more...
All of these are experiencing gravitational effects, so gravity must be there, right? You seem to be conflating our current understanding and equations of gravity with the actual effect of it. Gravity is universal, our understanding of it, however, is incomplete.
Wrong. I'm arguing that what scientists THINK are large scale measurements, are shown to be wrong. They are actually very close, and still wrong.
Then citing articles that assume large distances is not the way to argue. FOr the articles to be right, you have to assume large distances exist. If they don't, then the article is talking about gibberish...and so are you.
I know it says Newton's Law! That's the point. The full name of that "law" is the Newton's Law of UNIVERSAL gravitation. Which we have seen is a far cry from any kind of laws...
Correct, as new information comes in, we revise our understanding. That's science, and is why we stop calling things laws any more except for things that have historically been called such. When it became apparent that Newton's Laws were not Universal, we developed relativity. The paper is arguing that relativity is not universal either. Not one of those statements, however, says that gravitation is not universal, merely that our models, our understanding, and our equations do not refer to universal gravitation, only local gravitation for expanding meanings of the word "local."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 570 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-19-2009 4:04 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 576 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-25-2009 6:43 AM Perdition has replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 574 of 633 (532625)
10-25-2009 6:00 AM


As any one can clearly see these here is a statement of FAITH, not FACT.
quote:
However, as the number of usable observations increases, I expect that the error will diminish and the resulting solar parallax will tend to the true value of 8.794. Therefore, it's important to submit your own observational data.
Just look at it. they guy says that he EXPECTS that the error will diminish. Well I expect that there will be less imbeciles on this forum as time goes by, but is that a statement of what will actually happen, or what I hope will happen? Obviously it's not a fact. The true number was 8.538. And if it some day changes, than fine. But as of now, it stands.
And they 2003/2004 mistake, it's not a mistake, it clearly says 2003 Martian parralax in the PDF that is linked from creationwiki.
http://www.mccarthyobservatory.org/pdfs/pm031117.pdf
It even says so in the title!

Replies to this message:
 Message 579 by onifre, posted 10-25-2009 5:00 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 575 of 633 (532627)
10-25-2009 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 572 by Straggler
10-19-2009 10:51 AM


Re: Your Model Your Terms - Still Doesn't Add Up.
quote:
And yet the forces are undetectable. Because they cancel each other out perfectly. At all points in your spehere. Despite the fact you can only assert this rather than show it by any calculation of forces.
Who cares. If the shelle exists, tha it just has to be thick enough to produce such a force at it's rotational speed. There is nothing strange about it. The simple conclusion is that the universe rotates based on the observed electromagnetic radiation from space. If it was no anisotropic, than we would conclude that it was us that are rotating. But it is anisotropic, meaning that it gets twisted when it's coming towards the Earth. And the way it is twisted is in the shape of a sphere. Which represents the rotating universe.
quote:
I did. But since then you have introduced a host of other forces which arbitrarily act in exactly the ways you need them to behave to sustain your silly model whilst remaining entirely undetectable as forces in themselves.
The magnetic radiation points to rotation of the universe. Not to the rotation of the Earth. The effects are detectable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 572 by Straggler, posted 10-19-2009 10:51 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 576 of 633 (532629)
10-25-2009 6:43 AM
Reply to: Message 573 by Perdition
10-19-2009 3:11 PM


quote:
That's debatable. If I'm giving directions to get ther, then sure, and if I ever meet someone who is outside of my solar system, I'll do so. On the other hand, If I'm talking extemporaneously with someone in some dive bar on the other side of the horsehead Nebula, it doesn't matter exactly where the sun and the solar system are, I can simply say that the sun is the center because everything is going around the sun, and nothing about outside the solar system need be mentioned.
But you don't know that. You are simply assuming that everything is going around the Sun based on the idea that actually everything is going around the Sun. That circular logic.
quote:
But the effects of the gravity of other objects is negligible. As you've said yourself, the force of gravity is inversly proportional to the square of the distance. Unless you can show that something is close enough to make any difference, then I can reaosnably exclude them, especially when we don't see any perturbation of orbits caused by something on the other side pulling.
Maybe not from your reference point. Maybe the whole Solar system is perturbed. Did you ever think about that? How do you detect that if you take the solar system as your reference point? Obviopusly you can't.
quote:
False. Extremely false. As you should know, Relativity has a lot more variables than Newton's equations, but when you solve Relativity for the Earth's surface, you find that most of the variables cancel out and you're left with Newton's Equations. The reason is, Neton was looking at a specific place and isn't going to notice when there are other variables that cancel each other out. For example, 1+3=4, but 1+3+5-2+3-6=4 as well. DOes that mean the first equation is wrong? No, it just means the other numbers cancel each other out. So, if we find out there are other variables in Universal Gravitation, it will turn out, I gurantee it, that if you solve for smaller distances, you'll find that those variuables cancel out and we're left with Relativity.
What other variables are you talking about? The first equation is obviusly wrong. Yes, the results are the same, but the equation itself is wrong. BEcause if the variables changed, the result would change also. It is only chance that different equations give the same results.
quote:
You're now misunderstanding me...your comprehension problems are showing. Gravitation works perfectly on all levels, but being imperfect beings, our current understanding of how gravity works could be flawed. We've only recently had the ability to measure gravity's expression on such large distances to such a degree of accuracy, so it's no surprise that there are things we didn't anticipate.
OR! Gravity is not universal. Did that ever cross your mind? Could that be the answer also?
quote:
It has nothing to do with Earth. It has to do with vast distances. Any gravitational bodies closer to each other than the distances between local groups of galaxies will behave as Relativity says they should. It's only when the distance between them exceeds that level that it starts to do weird things.
Which means that the equation is applicable only on certain scales. Which also means the equation is false. But that's okay, they all are. All scientifc model are only temporary, and are simply models of reality. Not true reality as it is.
quote:
All of these are experiencing gravitational effects, so gravity must be there, right? You seem to be conflating our current understanding and equations of gravity with the actual effect of it. Gravity is universal, our understanding of it, however, is incomplete.
No, we have no idea what is accelerating them! We simply think it's gravitational forces. And I'll ask you again, if you say that our knowledge of gravity is incomplete, could it possibly be, that the part where our knowledge is lacking is about gravitation's universality?
quote:
Then citing articles that assume large distances is not the way to argue. FOr the articles to be right, you have to assume large distances exist. If they don't, then the article is talking about gibberish...and so are you.
Of course it is. Simply because whatever the distances, the equations proved themselves wrong.
quote:
Correct, as new information comes in, we revise our understanding. That's science, and is why we stop calling things laws any more except for things that have historically been called such. When it became apparent that Newton's Laws were not Universal, we developed relativity. The paper is arguing that relativity is not universal either. Not one of those statements, however, says that gravitation is not universal, merely that our models, our understanding, and our equations do not refer to universal gravitation, only local gravitation for expanding meanings of the word "local."
Your logic is unbeliveable.
So you admit that we are wrong about our models, we are wrong about our understanding, we are wrong about our equations, we are wrong about Newton's laws, we are wrong about relativity BUT!!! We are NOT, and we NEVER EVER can be WRONG about the universality of gravity!?!!?
LOL anyone!?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 573 by Perdition, posted 10-19-2009 3:11 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 582 by Perdition, posted 10-26-2009 1:13 PM Smooth Operator has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 577 of 633 (532630)
10-25-2009 6:48 AM


And so the idiocy continues...
Of course you can perfectly describe the motion of the entire Universe - Moon, Sun, Solar System, Milky Way, and the rest - as revolving around a static Earth. The motions are hideous, the mathematics unspeakable and we have no explanative framework for why ANY of this occurs. But, it can be done. This is what SO insists we should do.
However, when Aldrin and Armstrong stood on the Moon, they observed exactly the same situation. They could have insisted that the Moon is static, and the rest of the Universe is revolving around it. We would again have a hideous set of unexplained motions and mathematics. The problem is, this motion is entirely contradicted by the original motion as dictated by a static Earth. So which is correct? Why do we choose the Earth over the Moon?
Now, if we apply the modern understanding of the Universe, we obtain an infinitely simpler set of motions, predictive mathematics, and an explanative framework of extraordinary capability comprised of modern relativity and cosmology.
So, which do I choose? Earth centric, Moon centric, or the modern understanding? Or, to paraphrase, how f'in stupid do you think I am???

  
Itinerant Lurker
Member (Idle past 2655 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 12-12-2008


Message 578 of 633 (532681)
10-25-2009 4:03 PM


Just thought I'd share this as an excellent visualization of a geocentric solar system:
Planets
Compared to a heliocentric solar system:
Solar System Visualizer

Replies to this message:
 Message 580 by cavediver, posted 10-25-2009 5:50 PM Itinerant Lurker has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 579 of 633 (532684)
10-25-2009 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 574 by Smooth Operator
10-25-2009 6:00 AM


Well I expect that there will be less imbeciles on this forum as time goes by
Just as soon as you leave the forum.
And they 2003/2004 mistake, it's not a mistake, it clearly says 2003 Martian parralax in the PDF that is linked from creationwiki.
NO IT DOESN"T. Wrong link, again. This is concerning the Transit of Venus.
Here's the right link: online calculator.
From the link:
quote:
The observations of the last transit of Venus, made at different points of the earth, may be used to determine the sun’s mean equatorial parallax, a measure for its distance from the earth. The calculator below enables you to compute the mean equatorial solar parallax online from your own and others’ observations of the 2004 transit of Venus, employing either Halley’s or Delisle’s method.
Results of the 2004 transit
From the contact timings submitted so far, which are listed in the calculator, a preliminary solar parallax may be computed by pairing complete observations of second and third contact. If only timings from widely separated locations are paired and combinations of neighbouring locations are accordingly disregarded, a total number of 42 matching observations is found. Subsequently, applying Halleyfs method to these combinations and averaging the results, a solar parallax of 8''.538 is found, corresponding to a sunfs distance of 154084980 km. This compares to the true value of the mean solar parallax, the difference being only 2.9%.
Itfs striking that three-quarters of the paired observations yield a solar parallax being significantly smaller than the true value. This indicates that somehow the observations are biased by the black drop effect. However, as the number of usable observations increases, I expect that the error will diminish and the resulting solar parallax will tend to the true value of 8.794. Therefore, it's important to submit your own observational data.

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 574 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-25-2009 6:00 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 580 of 633 (532688)
10-25-2009 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 578 by Itinerant Lurker
10-25-2009 4:03 PM


Great visual, but this is simply classic epicycles. You have to remember that this geocentric Solar System is sanity in spades compared to Smooth Operator's mental meltdown. The model depicted still accepts that the Earth rotates. Smooth Operator does not. The visual needs to spin around 365 times faster What a tool...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 578 by Itinerant Lurker, posted 10-25-2009 4:03 PM Itinerant Lurker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 581 by Itinerant Lurker, posted 10-25-2009 8:58 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Itinerant Lurker
Member (Idle past 2655 days)
Posts: 67
Joined: 12-12-2008


Message 581 of 633 (532701)
10-25-2009 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 580 by cavediver
10-25-2009 5:50 PM


True, I didn't think of that. Then, of course, we'd need the sun to be spiralling "up" and "down" in relation to earth as well as mars doing the same thing as it orbited the sun. I wonder if your average computer can even handle what SO's solar system behaves like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 580 by cavediver, posted 10-25-2009 5:50 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 582 of 633 (532792)
10-26-2009 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 576 by Smooth Operator
10-25-2009 6:43 AM


But you don't know that. You are simply assuming that everything is going around the Sun based on the idea that actually everything is going around the Sun. That circular logic.
It's the simplest explanation, and until someone comes along and shows that the simplest explanation CANNOT be true, it makes the most sense to hold to that.
Maybe not from your reference point. Maybe the whole Solar system is perturbed. Did you ever think about that? How do you detect that if you take the solar system as your reference point? Obviopusly you can't.
We can track the orbits of the planets, and we don't see any perturbation. Now, if the whole solar system gets perturbed, such that the sun and everything around it gets shifted by the same amount, then it doesn't matter, since the solar system remains the same, just in a different position, making no difference to things inside the solar system compared to other things inside the solar system.
Saying maybe this and maybe that is all fine and good, but until you can SHOW that your maybe is an "in fact," you're only spinning your wheels.
What other variables are you talking about? The first equation is obviusly wrong. Yes, the results are the same, but the equation itself is wrong. BEcause if the variables changed, the result would change also. It is only chance that different equations give the same results.
Relativity takes Newton's laws and expands them to consider different frames of reference. Newton's laws work on Earth because we are all in the same reference frame. We're pretty close to the same frame for all the probes and shuttles we launch as well. What we found, however, is that as speeds get close to c, Newton's laws stop working. Looking back, this isn't surprising, since the frames are different, but when your entire life is spent in one frame, and there is no reason to think there are more frames, why would we have expected Newton to account for them?
Now, if this papaer is correct, we're left considering that maybe there are meta-frames, or other variables that cancel out in the scenarios we've been using ever since, and that large distances are the next thing we have to account for. That just means our understanding is expanding and we need a more general set of equations than we currently have.
OR! Gravity is not universal. Did that ever cross your mind? Could that be the answer also?
Maybe, I'm not going to rule it out, but we're a long way from being able to make that statement with any reliability or credibility when we have many other options to check out. One such would be the one in the paper you referenced.
Which means that the equation is applicable only on certain scales. Which also means the equation is false. But that's okay, they all are. All scientifc model are only temporary, and are simply models of reality. Not true reality as it is.
Your statement is false. The equations are ture, even Newton's are true. You just have to specifiy the frame of reference you're using it in. The equations didn't get proven false, they just got proven specific. The models we have for all of science are true, they're just not complete. As we learn more, we put more pieces in the puzzle, but that rarely means we have the pieces completely in the wrong spots for the parts we currently have.
No, we have no idea what is accelerating them! We simply think it's gravitational forces. And I'll ask you again, if you say that our knowledge of gravity is incomplete, could it possibly be, that the part where our knowledge is lacking is about gravitation's universality?
Again, it's possible, but unlikely...and there is a lot of hard work that would need to be done to give this idea even a slim amount of reliability or credibility. I'm not trying to discourage any lines of thinking and exploring, but you have not done any of the work and you come in here all cocky claiming you have it right and everyone else in the entire world (except for a small handful) are wrong and imbecilic. You come off as a crackpot when you do that.
Of course it is. Simply because whatever the distances, the equations proved themselves wrong.
Wrong. Not "whatever the distances." It's only wrong over LARGE distances. If there are NO large distances, then the equations hold just fine. They work on Earth, they work to get probes to other planets and moons, and they work to get shuttles and rockets to LEO, all very precisely. Sounds pretty good to me.
Your logic is unbeliveable.
My logic is sound. Please show the exact places where it has gone wrong. Yours, however, relies on emotionality, rebelliousness, and douchebaggery.
So you admit that we are wrong about our models, we are wrong about our understanding, we are wrong about our equations, we are wrong about Newton's laws, we are wrong about relativity BUT!!! We are NOT, and we NEVER EVER can be WRONG about the universality of gravity!?!!?
You have a strange idea of the word "wrong." We have incomplete understandings of universal gravitation, but we have very good understandings of gravitation over only "small" distances of thousands of light years in varying frames of acceleration. We're not "WRONG" we're "INCOMPLETE" and the simplest explanation is usually the best one. Your explanation is the most convoluted, precisely maintained load of claptrap to ever be considered.
It has been weighed, it has been measured, and it has been found wanting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-25-2009 6:43 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 584 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-29-2009 8:04 AM Perdition has replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 583 of 633 (533177)
10-29-2009 7:36 AM


If anyone is still interested. It's plain and clear as day that the Creationwiki article points to both the 2003 article, and the 2004 article. So there is nothing wrong with it.
http://www.mccarthyobservatory.org/pdfs/pm031117.pdf
Bedrijfsruimte huren in Utrecht
Both of these links can be found here
Essay:Victorious Biblical Astronomy Part 8 - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 584 of 633 (533185)
10-29-2009 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 582 by Perdition
10-26-2009 1:13 PM


quote:
It's the simplest explanation, and until someone comes along and shows that the simplest explanation CANNOT be true, it makes the most sense to hold to that.
No it's not. You are simply saying it is. You have an infinite universe that is only 15 billion light years in diameter. Which is 4D, but is also flat. You ahve black holes, dark matter, dark energy, curved space, trillions of stars, etc. IT'S NOT SIMPLE!!!!!!!
quote:
We can track the orbits of the planets, and we don't see any perturbation. Now, if the whole solar system gets perturbed, such that the sun and everything around it gets shifted by the same amount, then it doesn't matter, since the solar system remains the same, just in a different position, making no difference to things inside the solar system compared to other things inside the solar system.
Saying maybe this and maybe that is all fine and good, but until you can SHOW that your maybe is an "in fact," you're only spinning your wheels.
I'm not even trying to show it. It' snot my intention. I'm just pointing out flaws in your model. In which you can't know if you are perturbed or not.
quote:
Relativity takes Newton's laws and expands them to consider different frames of reference. Newton's laws work on Earth because we are all in the same reference frame. We're pretty close to the same frame for all the probes and shuttles we launch as well. What we found, however, is that as speeds get close to c, Newton's laws stop working. Looking back, this isn't surprising, since the frames are different, but when your entire life is spent in one frame, and there is no reason to think there are more frames, why would we have expected Newton to account for them?
Or, maybe we are simply not orbiting the sun a 30 km/s. Did you ever think that could be an explanation? Maybe that is why we see the light at constant speed here on Earth.
quote:
Now, if this papaer is correct, we're left considering that maybe there are meta-frames, or other variables that cancel out in the scenarios we've been using ever since, and that large distances are the next thing we have to account for. That just means our understanding is expanding and we need a more general set of equations than we currently have.
Or, it could mean that the gravity we thought was universal, simply isn't. Is it not possible for gravity not to be universal? Does it have to be?
quote:
Maybe, I'm not going to rule it out, but we're a long way from being able to make that statement with any reliability or credibility when we have many other options to check out. One such would be the one in the paper you referenced.
It's actually oppostie from. That you are making a positive statement, based on possibly 0.00001% of the universe observed. Wouldn't it be more realistic to firs observe 99% of the universe and that with a lot more confidence to conclude that gravity is universal. Insted you observe a slice of universe and claim that the WHOLE UNIVERSE acts liek it does here, with respect to gravity.
That's like interogating 1 person from 1000 and claiming that he is probbably the one responsible for the murder, and he is the one who did it, and we will be sure of it, untill we can prove all otehrs didn't do it. That's just painfully wrong logic.
quote:
Your statement is false. The equations are ture, even Newton's are true. You just have to specifiy the frame of reference you're using it in.
If you have to specify the frame of reference than they are not true. They would be true if they would hold in every single reference frame. That would than be called the grand unifying theory. Something that has been tried and has been failed to achive in physics.
quote:
The equations didn't get proven false, they just got proven specific. The models we have for all of science are true, they're just not complete.
BY DEFINITION IF IT'S NOT COMPLETE IT'S NOT TRUE!!!! WE ARE DEALING WITH FIRST GRADE SCHOOL LOGIC HERE!!!!
Thats like saying that "2 + 3 = 4", is not wrong, it's just incomplete. And that we just need to add something to make it complete. By definition, this equation is wrong.
quote:
Again, it's possible, but unlikely...and there is a lot of hard work that would need to be done to give this idea even a slim amount of reliability or credibility. I'm not trying to discourage any lines of thinking and exploring, but you have not done any of the work and you come in here all cocky claiming you have it right and everyone else in the entire world (except for a small handful) are wrong and imbecilic. You come off as a crackpot when you do that.
LOL!? Where? Where did I say that I'm the one who holds the ultimate truth!? I never said that. I only called people imbeciles because they deserved it. I never said that I must be correct in my views.
quote:
Wrong. Not "whatever the distances." It's only wrong over LARGE distances. If there are NO large distances, then the equations hold just fine. They work on Earth, they work to get probes to other planets and moons, and they work to get shuttles and rockets to LEO, all very precisely. Sounds pretty good to me.
Which means they are wrong, since they do not account for all distances. Or are you claiming that 2 + 3 = 4 is correct in 4/5 cases? I mean, my equation I just wrote holds for four fifths of the final true result. So why calim it's wrong? It's just incomplete!
quote:
My logic is sound. Please show the exact places where it has gone wrong. Yours, however, relies on emotionality, rebelliousness, and douchebaggery.
You are wrong in claiming that gravity is universal by only examining 0.00001% of the universe. That's not sound logic.
quote:
You have a strange idea of the word "wrong." We have incomplete understandings of universal gravitation, but we have very good understandings of gravitation over only "small" distances of thousands of light years in varying frames of acceleration. We're not "WRONG" we're "INCOMPLETE" and the simplest explanation is usually the best one. Your explanation is the most convoluted, precisely maintained load of claptrap to ever be considered.
Oh, okay than. By your logic, my equation 2 + 3 = 4 holds than. Remember, it's not wrong, it's just incomplete!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 582 by Perdition, posted 10-26-2009 1:13 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 586 by Perdition, posted 10-29-2009 12:09 PM Smooth Operator has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 585 of 633 (533197)
10-29-2009 9:50 AM


"Einstein is still right!"
Article in today's NYT: 7.3 Billion Light-Years Later, Einstein’s Theory Prevails.
Or as the journal Nature apparently put it, "Einstein found right again. Heavens not askew! Savants not agog!"
--Percy

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024