Relativity is wrong...

quote:

---

It doesn't matter what Schwarzschild talked about, it doesn't matter what somebody says in an introduction to their translation of Schwarzschild's papers, it doesn't matter what you think Hilbert did or didn't do, because it is a mathematical fact (provable by a final year undergraduate) that the Schwarzschild solution contains a black hole. In fact I could prove it right now if you want or link you to several derivations.

---

That is not what Stephen Crothers says. He has written about it extensively. And he says that it's wrong. There are no black holes, and they are in contradiction with GR.

quote:

---

I have taken a look at Stephen Crothers website (as the wonderful onifire suggested ) and I must say I am not even remotely convinced this person understands the differential geometry required to use General Relativity, let alone actually criticise the mathematics of it. Take for example his Ric=0 page where he says Ric=0 forbids masses and violates special relativity and the equivalence principle. He doesn't seem to understand that the equivalence principle simply means that any spacetime should look like Minkowski spacetime near a point.* Instead he talks about it as some kind statement concerning masses and energy.

---

It also means that there is no mass or energy in that certain universe. Therefore no black hole can form from collapse of some mass. Because it doesn't exist. Yet, what scientists do when they do calculations, they simply later on, add mass to the equation and make equations to collapse it into a black hole. This is a problem because it violates First Law of thermodynamics. Matter and energy can't be created. Yet relativists simply do create matter out of nothing when doing their equations.

That's what I keep say'n but they won't listen. I don't get it either, Smooth. On sheets of paper a mile long sometimes, I know, what gives with these guys? How many more times does Crothers have to put ink to paper before people realize that he's right? A(f'n)men! I feel I have learned more from this single post than in all my years of studying. Thanks, Smooth, and of course, thanks to Crothers. The First Law, that was observed and concluded to be a law by beings made of mass and energy...hmmm? Excuse me, Smooth, but I will beg to differ here. Everyone knows that Invisible Pink Unicorns' sole purpose is to create mass and energy. Straggler said so, and he has definitely written extensively on this.- Oni

I get how a spiraling shell could cause a wobble in the sun's rotation around the Earth, but how could it simultaneously cause a wobble in Mar's rotation around the sun going around the Earth?

you won't understand it because SO's "model" is a gibbering, cretinous lump of wack.The reason, after 32 pages, that nobody understand his model yet still knows it is wrong is because it is so abhorrently amorphously cretinously ridiculously inconsistent from moment to moment.first *everything* rotates around the earth. Then mars is orbiting the sun. then mars is "following" the sun. then there's a delay. then everything is spinning, but not the earth, then...god knows what.pink unicorns probably.I tol'em. buggerit, millenium hand and shrimp I tol'em we can't stay here, this is BAT COUNTRY!

I love Discworld quotes, bring more on! ;-)

GreySeal,I am voting your post for post of the month. This is the most rational and lucid post in this entire thread.BTSO,I am absolutely done with your inane posts. Have a nice life.Checking out for the last time on this thread.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

oh, discworld you got perfectly - but who do the last eight words belong to?

No clue on those, sorry. Edited by Perdition, : smily

shame on you! this guy!plus you should get "fear and loathing in las vegas" - I'm told the book is better but the movie is crazy.Edited by Admin, : Fix url.

quote:

---

I get how a spiraling shell could cause a wobble in the sun's rotation around the Earth, but how could it simultaneously cause a wobble in Mar's rotation around the sun going around the Earth?

---

If it can cause the Sun to have a spiral orbit, than it can cause the Mars to do the same thing. But that's besides the point. If Mars is indeed following the Sun, than it will be following the Sun in a spiral fashion, simply because the Sun is spiraling.

But what you have to account for is WHY is Mars following the sun? Is the sun the dominant gravity generator in your model? If so, why doesn't the movement of the sun perturb Earth's exalted position? If it's not and Earth is, why doesn't Mars just orbit the Earth rather than being pulled around by a smaller mass object?It's questions like these that a robust theory would need to answer, and which you have failed to explain other than, "It's a rotating shell that creates forces that counteract gravity by some means I'm not sure of, and the rotating shell doesn't cause the Earth to spin because I say so..."

You didn't really answer my question on how.... But mars isn't doing the same thing. The sun is sprial-orbiting around the center of the Universe, the Earth, because of the rotating shell around it. But Mars is sprial-orbiting around the sun, which is sprial orbiting around the center, so we have a sprial-orbit around another sprial orbit. I don't think that could be caused by one rotating shell. How could it? But its not simply following the sun. It has its own spiral-orbit around the sun's spiral orbit. That's too complicating to be accounted for by one rotating shell, is it not?

1.) The Sun could also be smaller than the Earth. There is no reason why it wouldn't be. Nobody knows for sure.

What what what!? (Mrs Broflowski from Southpark)

Do you not think Earth is special? I didn't. But now I do. Just look at it, there is no other planet like ours. Nobody found any planet suitable for life. Not only that, but there has never, ever been found a planet that had any traces of life. Yet there are millions of life forms right here on Earth. From what we know today, yes, the Earth is special.

I think you mean to say "...there is no other planet like ours known to us at present".This entire comment reveals that you don't really appreciate the size of the known universe or how limited are our abilities to observe extra-solar planets. If this argument were limited to this solar system alone, it would be closer to the truth, though still not accurate (there is developing evidence of life on Mars, Titan and Europa, with the details still trickling in).With regard to extra-solar planets (planets around other stars), we are rapidly cataloguing a great many of them. See The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia for a collated index of confirmed discoveries along with details of ongoing searches.You are forgetting the weak anthropic principle, which says that we must consider that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers. In other words if our planet wasn't teeming with millions of life forms, we wouldn't be here to comment on how amazing it is that it is teeming with millions of life forms. That does not presuppose the possibility that other islands of life exist throughout the universe.Edited by Briterican, : Changed "...compelling evidence of life on Mars..." to "developing evidence". Bad choice of words initially.

It has been known in some way since Aristarchus that the Sun is larger than the Earth. You can prove it by using no more than high school geometry and watching the moon. Plus we've sent actual probes, over twenty, to the Sun.
How do you think the Sun might be smaller than the Earth?

So? Hawking and Penrose have a theorem proving he is wrong. He can write about it from here until the end of time and it will not make a lick of difference. It would be like writing "On the Falsity of 1+1=2, Volumes 1-36" Well of course in the vacuum region there is no mass. It is the non-vacuum region which supplies the mass, the Schwarzschild solution describes the region outside the mass. Can you reference a textbook or article where this is being done, rather than some guy who says it is being done?