Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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: 0/0


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


(1)
Message 121 of 633 (517596)
08-01-2009 8:34 PM


the evidence is unsupported
In the link that Smooth is providing, the suns-path-diagram, click on the name of the person credited for this work.
Clicking on, Allen Davis, leads you to a religious site that spouts hate. So, catholic scientist was right, this is a religious based argument. None of it is supported with evidence that has been peer-reviewed. It's pseudo-science garbage.
If any of it were true it would be subjected to the scientific method. It hasn't been. It's garbage.
- Oni

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 9:03 PM onifre has replied

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


Message 122 of 633 (517597)
08-01-2009 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Richard Townsend
07-30-2009 2:10 PM


Re: Unbelievable!
quote:
Re geocentricity, how do you explain parallax?
Already explained before.
quote:
There are two schools of thought among geocentrists as to how parallax arises (and if the quantum mechanicists can have two schools of thought, why not the geocentrists?). The pure form of geocentricity centers the stars on the earth, and describes the resulting annual stellar shifts by placing the Earth at one sink of a conformal mapping. This procedure has been worked out in rigorous detail for the two-dimensional case by James Hanson, and agrees with the observed phenomena.
Yahoo
quote:
how do you explain the apparent motions of other planets? Do you believe in epicycles?
Everybody does, you too, you just don't know it. The heliocentric model has epicycles too.
quote:
There is a common misconception that the Copernican model did away with the need for epicycles. This is not true, because Copernicus was able to rid himself of the long-held notion that the Earth was the center of the Solar system, but he did not question the assumption of uniform circular motion. Thus, in the Copernican model the Sun was at the center, but the planets still executed uniform circular motion about it. As we shall see later, the orbits of the planets are not circles, they are actually ellipses. As a consequence, the Copernican model, with it assumption of uniform circular motion, still could not explain all the details of planetary motion on the celestial sphere without epicycles. The difference was that the Copernican system required many fewer epicycles than the Ptolemaic system because it moved the Sun to the center.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/...ect/retrograde/copernican.html
But as you can see, the Tychonic system requires less epicycles than Ptolemaic one.
Tychonic system - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Richard Townsend, posted 07-30-2009 2:10 PM Richard Townsend has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by subbie, posted 08-01-2009 8:51 PM Smooth Operator has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 123 of 633 (517598)
08-01-2009 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Smooth Operator
08-01-2009 8:40 PM


Re: Unbelievable!
The heliocentric model has epicycles too.
Wrong. The need for epicycles was eliminated upon recognition that planetary orbits were ellipses, rather than circles. I don't believe in epicycles, nor does Richard Townsend, nor does anyone with even an elementary understanding of astronomy. Once again, you are telling us much more about your level of ignorance than anything else.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 8:40 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 8:59 PM subbie has replied

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


Message 124 of 633 (517599)
08-01-2009 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by onifre
08-01-2009 7:49 PM


Well again, your ignorance know no limits.
quote:
Wrong, Smooth. Gravity isn't a "thing" that does anything. It's the result of mass and energy curving spacetime. A photon, just like everything else, follows the nearest thing to a straight line in curved space, refered to as geodesic.
Actually it is, in the Dynamic theory of gravity tesla proposed. In this theory everything icluding gravity can be explained by electromagnetic forces.
quote:
When light follows curved space, say around a star, it produces an effect called gravitational lensing which proves that the space around the star is curved. This is an observed phenomenon. This observed phenomenon was predicted by Einstein's GR theory, proving, once again, how well GR functions to describe spacetime.
Or, or, ummm... maybe it's the effect of the aether, producing gravity, that is bending light? Did you ever think that is possible?
And no, once again, Einstein was not the one to predict it. A known plagiarist that he was, he coopted this well known phenomena into his theory. Light bending by gravity was already predicted before him.
quote:
Actually, a similar deflection of light had already been calculated before Einstein. The British physicist Henry Cavendish, and, most notably, the German astronomer Johann Georg von Soldner had used Newton's mechanics and calculated the hyperbolic trajectory of a particle which passes at the speed of light nearby a large mass. This calculation yields a deflection angle that is just half as big as the value obtained from General Relativity.
Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Light Deflection at the Sun
Please go away, and educate yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by onifre, posted 08-01-2009 7:49 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by onifre, posted 08-01-2009 9:44 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

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


Message 125 of 633 (517600)
08-01-2009 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by subbie
08-01-2009 8:51 PM


Re: Unbelievable!
quote:
Wrong. The need for epicycles was eliminated upon recognition that planetary orbits were ellipses, rather than circles. I don't believe in epicycles, nor does Richard Townsend, nor does anyone with even an elementary understanding of astronomy. Once again, you are telling us much more about your level of ignorance than anything else.
But he first one, after the Ptolemaic system, did still need them. So what I meant to say is that by placing the Sun by itself in the center does not solve the problem of epicycles. You need, eliptical orbits. Unlike the geocentric Tychonic system which doesn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by subbie, posted 08-01-2009 8:51 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by subbie, posted 08-01-2009 9:08 PM Smooth Operator has replied

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


Message 126 of 633 (517601)
08-01-2009 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by onifre
08-01-2009 8:34 PM


Re: the evidence is unsupported
quote:
In the link that Smooth is providing, the suns-path-diagram, click on the name of the person credited for this work.
Clicking on, Allen Davis, leads you to a religious site that spouts hate. So, catholic scientist was right, this is a religious based argument. None of it is supported with evidence that has been peer-reviewed. It's pseudo-science garbage.
If any of it were true it would be subjected to the scientific method. It hasn't been. It's garbage.
Well you are obviously a fucking retard. When did I ever quote any biblical statement's? Never. So how can you say my arguments are religious? Is it my fault that the authors of that article have religious views that they like to connect with this topic?
And just by saying that links I provide are not peer-reviewd doesn't make it so. Was Michelson-Morley experiment not peer reviewed, how about Michelson-Gale? The Sagnac experiment?
Get a life you idiot.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by onifre, posted 08-01-2009 8:34 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-01-2009 9:14 PM Smooth Operator has replied
 Message 129 by onifre, posted 08-01-2009 9:19 PM Smooth Operator has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 127 of 633 (517602)
08-01-2009 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Smooth Operator
08-01-2009 8:59 PM


Re: Unbelievable!
Does this mean that you agree that a heliocentric model with elliptical orbits accurately describes our observations?
Also, I'd like an answer to my previous question: what evidence would you expect to see that is absent if the Earth did orbit the Sun?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 8:59 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 9:51 PM subbie has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 128 of 633 (517605)
08-01-2009 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Smooth Operator
08-01-2009 9:03 PM


Re: the evidence is unsupported
SO writes:
Was Michelson-Morley experiment not peer reviewed, how about Michelson-Gale? The Sagnac experiment?
Which all the authors attest either debunk (in the case of the Michelson-Morely experiment) or do not provide evidence for the idea that there is an aether 'wind'. Again the Sagnac affect is substantiated by the theories of relativity not by the hypothesis of aether.
I quoted this to you earlier but of course you chose to ignore it.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 9:03 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 9:53 PM DevilsAdvocate has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 129 of 633 (517608)
08-01-2009 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Smooth Operator
08-01-2009 9:03 PM


Re: the evidence is unsupported
Shalom Smooth,
Well you are obviously a fucking retard.
Not so smooth anymore, eh?
So how can you say my arguments are religious?
Religious based. You see, the gecentrism your hate group is advocating comes from a religious PoV. The site you cited clearly supports it.
Ergo, you're shitty excuse for an argument has a religous BASE.
And just by saying that links I provide are not peer-reviewd doesn't make it so.
The suns-path-diagram work has not been peer-reviewed. Find the peer-review and cite it. You can't, I tried, it doesn't exist beyond that one website you linked. It's pseudo-science garbage.
Was Michelson-Morley experiment not peer reviewed, how about Michelson-Gale? The Sagnac experiment?
Yes, they were. You're shitty sun-path-diagram psuedo-science bullshit, was not. That was the only thing I was refering to you schmuck.
- 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 9:03 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 10:04 PM onifre has replied

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


(1)
Message 130 of 633 (517610)
08-01-2009 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Smooth Operator
08-01-2009 8:56 PM


Shalom Smooth,
Actually it is, in the Dynamic theory of gravity tesla proposed.
The work that you yourself said was never published? Thus not peer-reviewed, thus pseudo-science bullshit once again.
Or, or, ummm... maybe it's the effect of the aether, producing gravity, that is bending light? Did you ever think that is possible?
Think it is possible, sure. I once thought it was possible for a cow to jump over the moon, until I saw the evidence against that possibility.
There is no aether producing gravity, and if your coming to that conclusion because of Teslas work, then you're believing non-reviewed pseudo-science bullshit.
In fact, you can't even reference the actual work done by Tesla. None of it was published. None of it was reviewed by other physicist. None of it has been subjected to proper analysis by others in the field. Which makes it pseudo-science garbage, once again.
Please go away, and educate yourself.
Well, since you said please...
Anyways, from your link:
quote:
This calculation yields a deflection angle that is just half as big as the value obtained from General Relativity.
This difference between the two calculations is nowadays encoded in a parameter called , where = 1, or (1+)/2 = 1, corresponds to the bending of light as predicted by General Relativity, while = 0, or (1+)/2 = 1/2, is the value for the Newtonian calculation. Actually, is just one out of a set of several parameters which are used in a framework called parametrised post-Newtonian formalism.
The results of these observations were made public at the meeting in London in November 1919 that made Einstein a scientific star: The measured deflection of light did fit to the Einstein value, while it was much less compatible with the Newtonian bending.
Einsteins prediction had a different deflection value. AND, the measured deflection, accordind to the link YOU cited, fit the Einstein value, while much less compatible with the Newtonian bending.
However, the fact remains that spacetime is curved.
Stick around, well give you the proper education, Smooth.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 8:56 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

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


Message 131 of 633 (517612)
08-01-2009 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by subbie
08-01-2009 9:08 PM


Re: Unbelievable!
quote:
Does this mean that you agree that a heliocentric model with elliptical orbits accurately describes our observations?
No, it just means you got rid of the epycicles.
quote:
Also, I'd like an answer to my previous question: what evidence would you expect to see that is absent if the Earth did orbit the Sun?
More than 30 km/s measured value in the Michelson-Morley type experiment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by subbie, posted 08-01-2009 9:08 PM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by subbie, posted 08-01-2009 9:53 PM Smooth Operator has replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1254 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


(1)
Message 132 of 633 (517613)
08-01-2009 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Smooth Operator
08-01-2009 9:51 PM


Re: Unbelievable!
No, it just means you got rid of the epycicles.
What's the difference between the planetary orbits predicted by heliocentric elliptical orbits and what's observed?

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 9:51 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 10:07 PM subbie has not replied

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


Message 133 of 633 (517614)
08-01-2009 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by DevilsAdvocate
08-01-2009 9:14 PM


Re: the evidence is unsupported
quote:
Which all the authors attest either debunk (in the case of the Michelson-Morely experiment) or do not provide evidence for the idea that there is an aether 'wind'.
Because of the wrong assumption. They assumed teh moving Earth.
quote:
Again the Sagnac affect is substantiated by the theories of relativity not by the hypothesis of aether.
No it's not, and I explained why. Plus, relativity is also an aether theory. But a Lorentz-invariant one.
quote:
I quoted this to you earlier but of course you chose to ignore it.
No I didn't. I responded, but you didn't respond back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-01-2009 9:14 PM DevilsAdvocate has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 134 of 633 (517615)
08-01-2009 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by onifre
08-01-2009 9:19 PM


Re: the evidence is unsupported
quote:
Religious based. You see, the gecentrism your hate group is advocating comes from a religious PoV. The site you cited clearly supports it.
Ergo, you're shitty excuse for an argument has a religous BASE.
But I am not a part of that group nor do I agree with them in all cases, so it has nothing to do with me. Even if it is religiously based, does that mean that the scientific arguments are a priori wrong?
quote:
The suns-path-diagram work has not been peer-reviewed. Find the peer-review and cite it. You can't, I tried, it doesn't exist beyond that one website you linked. It's pseudo-science garbage.
So this one obviously hasn't but others have been. Besides, a peer-review doesn't mean anything. If you can't debate without resorting to this argument from authority type fallacy, than you already lost.
quote:
Yes, they were. You're shitty sun-path-diagram psuedo-science bullshit, was not. That was the only thing I was refering to you schmuck.
Why don't you go and fuck yourself with that crap. You said my links were not PR. But now you are switching to the postition that only some were not PR.
quote:
The work that you yourself said was never published? Thus not peer-reviewed, thus pseudo-science bullshit once again.
No, you fucking idiot. It was never published becasue Tesla died. PR is not what counts for what is righ and what's wrong.
quote:
Think it is possible, sure. I once thought it was possible for a cow to jump over the moon, until I saw the evidence against that possibility.
Well this means you are an idiot if you thought that.
quote:
There is no aether producing gravity, and if your coming to that conclusion because of Teslas work, then you're believing non-reviewed pseudo-science bullshit.
In fact, you can't even reference the actual work done by Tesla. None of it was published. None of it was reviewed by other physicist. None of it has been subjected to proper analisis by others in the field. Which makes it pseudo-science garbage, once again.
No, your head is what is full of bullshit. You piece of shit. Since when is PR arbiter of ultimate truth anyway?
quote:
Einsteins prediction had a different deflection value. AND, the measured deflection, accordind to the link YOU cited, fit the Einstein value, while much less compatible with the Newtonian bending.
The point remains that it wasn't his prediction in the first place. And the reason he got different results is becasue he waqs wrong. Newtonian results are much better.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ECLIPSE/Eclipse.html
This paper explains how Newtonian physics is more consistent than Einsteins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by onifre, posted 08-01-2009 9:19 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Coyote, posted 08-01-2009 10:37 PM Smooth Operator has replied
 Message 138 by onifre, posted 08-01-2009 10:40 PM Smooth Operator has replied

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


Message 135 of 633 (517616)
08-01-2009 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by subbie
08-01-2009 9:53 PM


Re: Unbelievable!
quote:
What's the difference between the planetary orbits predicted by heliocentric elliptical orbits and what's observed?
Nothing. But that doesn't make it true. Both models fit the observations. But you need more than that to pick one that will be called the best explanation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by subbie, posted 08-01-2009 9:53 PM subbie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024