Relativity is wrong...

They would? I don't see why?

quote:

---

You are asking how an experiment which matches a prediction of relativity is significant for relativity?
I really don't know what to say.

---

You misunderstood me. I asked you about what exactly does the theory predict and how is it significant to proving it. How does this test give evidence for relativty? That's my question.

quote:

---

I also see that you are advocating geocentrism and will first require proof that the Earth revolves around the Sun. Will we be asked next for evidence that grass is in fact green?

---

No, because we can see that the grass is green. We can't see the Earth orbiting the Sun, now can we?

At the risk of going insane.... Because it proves that the prediction made with relativity is true. Of course we can. Just leave the gravitational pull of the Earth and sit still in space, you'll see the Earth moving around the sun.

---

I hunt for the truth

quote:

---

What matches results? What is meaningless? Be specific...

---

The predictions match the result, but the theory is still meaningless without some evidence for the cause of the measured effect. Or for the evidence that can only be explained with the unobserved effect.

quote:

---

Relativity is a theory that explains an observed phenomenon. Meaning that the phenomenon was seen first before the theory was there to explain it. Therefore if it matches results then it matches the observation. If it matches the observation then it represents a real event in reality.

---

But it explains them with unobserved causes. Like curved space. We never actually see this curved space. So untill you have evidence for curved space, the math by itself is meaningless. You need something that can only be explained by curved space.

quote:

---

Lets go slowly. Because if one can make a prediction of an observed phenomenon using relativity and it ends up being correct, then one can say with confidence that GR works. Repet this process about a million times and it makes for a pretty good theory.

---

That's not what I was asking for. Look at my previous post for an explanation.

quote:

---

I'd like to re-ask you cavedivers question that you never answered. Does the LHC take into accouunt relativity or not?

---

I really don't carte about the LHC so don't bring it up again. Even if it does it's not a good experiment to begin with.

quote:

---

You are not understanding what you are reading. GR predicted the very thing you are using as evidence against it.

---

No, you are the one who doesn't understand what he is reading. Even if you were right, it would still mean that the pendullum could is maybe being pulled by the rotating shell of matter, and not the rotating Earth.The problem is that as I said this is not what Einstein himslef predicted first. This is the idea of Ernst Mach. He said that "matter there influences inertia here". That is his idea which Einstein incorporated into his relativity. The problem is that the experiment is performed as a geocentirc universe with bounds. Something that can not be relativistic. Becasue a universe with bounds would have a center, and therefore not be relativistic.So the experiment explains how coriolis forces arise in a geocentric universe with the universe rotating.

quote:

---

It is observed, from Earth. Look up in the sky, record the movements of the planets. This was done 500 years ago. Present evidence against it, don't just say "I don't believe it."

---

No, it's not observed! What the hell are you talking about? We only see them moving! I asked for specific evidence that the Earth is orbiting the Sun. Do you have it or not?

quote:

---

Do you even read your links?

---

Do you even read what the hell I'm writing!?!? YES, I KNOW IT HAD MISTAKES! I'M THE ONE WHO SAID IT FIRST!!!!!!That's the god damn point. I specifically told you that just because your math works and you get the right results, it doesn't mean your theory represents reality.

quote:

---

So why do accept one controversial theory -vs- a general concensus among all of physics? Why cite a single theory when it was rejected by physicist, and then use it to disprove the theory that was accepted?

---

Because maybe they were both done only on mathematical gorunds and they both don't represent reality. One was discarded earlier, and for the other one, is also the time to go.

quote:

---

No, it was proven to be inconsistent, which is different than "some errors." So why cite it as proof against GR?

---

But he did get the right equation. That's the point. Math alone is not evidence.

quote:

---

It is a fact that the Earth is orbiting the Sun. It is observed, visibly. The Earth is spherical, also, btw. It is not an unproven assumtion, no matter how many times you say it. Show me the evidence that it is not orbiting the Sun, as is accepted by all of modern science. Again, Smooth, the onus is on YOU to provide the evidence against it.

---

It is an assumption if you do not have any evidence. It certainly is not the onus on me. The logical starting point is from the observing point. What do we observe? The universe, including the Sun, planets and the stars, orbiting us! This is a fact. This is what we observe. This is our logical starting point.Granted, maybe it's just an illusion created by an orbiting and rotating Earth. Could be. But that is on you to prove, not me. You are the one calling our observation an illusion. So where's the evidence?

quote:

---

No it wasn't. Show me the evidence for his peer-reviewed work. Again, the onus is on YOU to prove what you claim. He's an economist that did some experiements and claims that relativity is wrong, fine, show me the work. It was not peer-reviewed because I can't find it, if I'm wrong please prove me wrong.

---

Are you telling me that I didn't give you the links to his work?

quote:

---

On what do you base this conclusion? How do you, for example, explain the seasons?

---

I base this on observations, the aether experiments, and no evidence to show otherwise. The seasons are explained by Sun's orbit. In winter it is far from us, in summer it is closer to us.

quote:

---

OK. Over to you then. On what science do you base your conclusion?

---

These are the 4 main experiments. But there are others.

quote:

---

(A) The Sagnac experiment [a.k.a. the Sagnac Interference] proved that there was the ether which could be used as a reference frame for movements. This demolished Einstein's theories of Relativity;

​

(B) Using the aether as a frame of reference, the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that we were NOT going round the sun;

​

(C) Airey's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether;

​

(D) The Michelson-Gale experiment [also called the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment] showed that the aether was going round the stationary earth 1 rotation per day. (The alternative that the earth was spinning 1 rotation per day inside a stationary aether is disproven by Airey's experiment. Note - to be pedantic, Airey's experiment involved measurments of a small angle due to the high 30 km/s "speed of the earth around the sun". The rotation of the earth at the equator is only 0.45 km/s and is too slow to register any angle change.)

---

geo - Restricted Area

quote:

---

And why has everybody else got it soooo wrong for the last 500 years?

---

Because they didn't check it out, maybe? Like me. I'm a geocentrist since last 6 months.Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

O RLY?

---

I'm not even going to respond to all of this. I'm not even a Christian. So basicly you are totally wrong.

quote:

---

Why do we not see streaks of light from the stars as they move at speeds faster than the speed of light?

---

Oh, I don't know... maybe because they are not moving that fast?

quote:

---

The linear velocity of the nearest star from the Sun, Proxima Centauri, would be v=r=15/360 *2r=1/24*2(25,277,549,183,000)=6,617,646,901,172 miles per hour (1.0650x1013 km/h) where is the angular velocity of the revolution of the universe around the Earth and r is the distance from the Earth to the nearest star Proxima Centaur at 4.3 ly or 25,277,549,183,000 miles or 40,680,272,120,000 km (1 light year=5,878,499,810,000 miles or 9,460,528,400,000 km). 6,617,646,901,172 miles per hour is 9868.003 c.

​

So what this means is that if the universe is revolving around the Earth at a speed of 1525 feet per second (465 m/s) than the nearest star (besides the Sun) would be rotating around the Earth at over 9800 times the speed of light! Even our sun would have to be traveling at a speed of 23,823,744 miles per hour which is nearly 4% the speed of light. At this rate of the speed the stars would be smeared across the sky as long arcs and the sun would be also be blurred as a long elipse beyond recognition.

---

Well you see this is where your false assumption kicks in. All of these measurements are based on the idea that the Earth is orbiting the Sun. That is why we only think those stars are so far away. The scientists use the stellar parallax to measure how far the stars are. But based on an assumption that the Earth is orbiting the Sun. That is why we think they are so far away, when in reality, they are not.

quote:

---

Nearby objects have a larger parallax than more distant objects when observed from different positions, so parallax can be used to determine distances. In astronomy, parallax is the only direct method by which distances to objects (typically stars) beyond the Solar System can be measured.

---

quote:

---

On an interstellar scale, parallax created by the different orbital positions of the Earth causes nearby stars to appear to move relative to more distant stars. By observing parallax, measuring angles and using geometry, one can determine the distance to various objects. When the object in question is a star, the effect is known as stellar parallax.

---

See. it' all based on an assumption. All the measurements of the "distant" stars are.Parallax - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Also why is it that the vast majority of the galaxies are red shifted (though a few of the nearer galaxies and galaxtic arms are blue shifted), meaning they are headed away from the Earth? If the universe was rotating around the Earth than there should be no blue or red shift as the galaxies are remaining at a constant distance from the Earth.

---

Again. This interpretaton is based on an assumption that redshif represents an object going away from us. It doesn't.

quote:

---

Dr. Arp has shown in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" that there is a physical connection between the barred spiral galaxy NGC 4319 and the quasar like object Markarian 205. This connection is between two objects that have vastly different redshift values.

---

Redshift can not indicate speed of recession because we have observational galaxies with vastly different redshifts, actually touching each other.http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htmSo basicly, everything you have to say, that is supposed to be evidence for heliocentrism, is just an assumption based on an assumption, based on an assumption. And all of them are based on an initial assumption that we actually are going around the Sun.Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Because it proves that the prediction made with relativity is true.

---

Which are based only on a mathematical abstraction, not real observable casues. Curved space is not an observational cause, it is only infered.

quote:

---

Of course we can. Just leave the gravitational pull of the Earth and sit still in space, you'll see the Earth moving around the sun.

---

Great, how do you propose we make this experiment happen?

You can't see "spacetime", if that's what you mean, you can however see the effects of curved spacetime. How about with a spaceship?...

---

I hunt for the truth

quote:

---

You can't see "spacetime", if that's what you mean, you can however see the effects of curved spacetime.

---

You are just interpreting observed events as the effects of curved space. You don't know it's curved space really doing it. Because you never even saw curved space!

quote:

---

How about with a spaceship?...

---

What about it? From which reference frame will you be looking at the Earth?If you pick the Earth you will see the Sun orbiting it. If you pick the Sun, you will see Earth orbiting it. So what do you do then?

Like I said, you can't see spacetime. But how else would we be able to see stars that are behind the sun if not because of curved spacetime? From inside the ship, of course. Or outside of it, in a spacesuit. What do you mean? You're not moving at all. Just sitting still in space. What you will see is all the planets orbitting the sun, including the Earth.

---

I hunt for the truth

I'm not entering this debate, but I can't let this slip by: Of course, the seasons are not the result of the distance between the sun and the earth but of the inclination of the earth's axis. (I got a bit of a difficulty to explain it in english lol, hoepfully I was clear enough. If not someone could rpbably explain it better).

Well, yes, in Ausrralia. Five million km closer at perihelion, in January, than in July.The smell of troll is overwhelming in here.

Eh...I'm bored already. You're not really showing any evidence for anything, so this is getting circular. With an ego like yours it's no wonder you are stupid enough to think you live in a geocentric solar system. I'm sure you think the Sun revolves around you specifically. When they start teaching your crap in universities then well talk again.However... Just one question though, does the LHC use relativity or not?I was just wondering if you had an answer. Does it take into account the math used in relativity?You never gave an answer on the other thread so I was hoping that you'd give one on this thread.So what do you say, does the LHC take into account the theory of relativity or not?If it does, and if it works, then that proves that you have no clue what you're talking about. That's why you won't answer it, you know what it implies. So man up, admit that it does, then go enjoy some coffee while reading Mein Kampf and stay away from cosmology.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Do you believe in gravity? In a Newtonian sense that is.Do you accept the concept of mass in terms of resistance to changes in motion (i.e. inertia)?Can you explain your concept of a fixed and static Earth orbited by more massive bodies in a manner that is consistent with your answers to the above? And what were you prior to that?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.