Relativity is wrong...

enjoy (apologies and end credit to RAZD, Coyote played the human in this farce, as to the troll, who knows?)Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.Edited by anglagard, : {abe}I thought weekly world news was replaced by worldnet daily, what is this crap doing here?Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.

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

SO also reports that in measuring time time is not an important parameter. Is there anything to say?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

What matches results? What is meaningless? Be specific... 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. 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.I'd like to re-ask you cavedivers question that you never answered. Does the LHC take into accouunt relativity or not? You are not understanding what you are reading. GR predicted the very thing you are using as evidence against it.From your link:

quote:

---

Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that rotating bodies drag spacetime around themselves in a phenomenon referred to as frame-dragging. The rotational frame-dragging effect was first derived from the theory of general relativity in 1918 by the Austrian physicists Josef Lense and Hans Thirring, and is also known as the Lense-Thirring effect.

---

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." Do you even read your links?

quote:

---

So Gehrcke initiated a reprint of Gerber's 1902-paper in the Annalen der Physik in 1917, where he questioned the priority of Einstein and tried to prove a possible Plagiarism by him. However, according to Albrecht Flsing and Roseveare, those claims were rejected, because soon after Gerber's paper was reprinted, scientists like Hugo von Seeliger,Max von Laue published some papers, where it was shown that Gerber's theory is inconsistent and his formula is not the consequence of his premises. Also Roseveare argued that Gerber's theory is inconsistent and that the value for the deflection of light in the gravitational field of the sun in Gerber's theory was too high by the factor 3/2.

---

Einstein writes:

quote:

---

The experts are not only in agreement that Gerber’s derivation is wrong through and through, but the formula cannot be obtained as a consequence of the main assumption made by Gerber. Mr. Gerber’s work is therefore completely useless, an unsuccessful and erroneous theoretical attempt. I maintain that the theory of general relativity has provided the first real explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury.

---

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

On what do you base this conclusion? How do you, for example, explain the seasons? OK. Over to you then. On what science do you base your conclusion? And why has everybody else got it soooo wrong for the last 500 years?I am genuinely intrigued by your thinking.

O RLY?In Message 44 you wrote: uk.geocities.com/hesedyahu/TorahCreationat the bottom of that page:

quote:

---

Whenever I'm discussing subject like this, a scripture comes to mind:

​

The heavens, heavens belong to YHWH, but the earth he has given to the children of men. (Psalm 115:16)

​

It also reminds me of what man was supposed to do in Genesis 1:26-28: have dominion over the earth and everything in it.

---

Of course you advocate this stuff because of your religious belief. We see it a lot here.What's odd is that you accept some science and use science as a requirement for explanations when it already fits you preconcieved view but also reject all science that goes against your preconieved view. Its hypocritical.All you do is jump from one factual point to the other by saying "prove it"...How do we know this? Because of that. well, prove that. Oh, that is proven by this thing. Oh yeah, well prove this thing. Sure, that is proven by those. Prove those!And on and on. Its a common creationist tactic.You're also guilty of the Gish gallop, another common creationist tactic.So we know you're a creationist.And you're just playing the same old stupid "prove it" game.We know that you will only accept science that supports your religious belief and will reject all science that goes against your religous belief. You're just Special Pleading.You realize that nobody takes you seriously, yeah?You're just target practice

I have sworn myself to a period of contemplation, self exploration and the acceptance of other points of view. In doing this I hope to transcend the limited material world, find inner peace and raise my spirituality rating.If I can maintain this quest for tranquility and spiritual enlightenment even in the face of head banging Heliocentric denial then I figure I can cope with anything. It is a test. Rest assured that normal service will be resumed at some point after the cricket.

Parallax, Smoothie. Look it up. Try to understand it - it's not at all difficult.Eppur si muove.

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Tell the truth - every time you consider actually refuting geocentrism, a hypothesis that hasn't been seriously considered by any respected scientist in living memory, you begin laughing so uncontrollably that typing out a coherent post becomes impossible.I mean, that's what happens to me. I assume others must have similar reactions.And since I've decided not to reply to SO, the racist douchenozzle from Stormfront, sitting back and laughing as he trolls his insanity across the forum is entirely acceptable/

Hey Rahvin. The former "me" would have said 'yes'. But where before I sought only discord now I seek only harmony. My new fount inner peace demands that I respect all points of view. I will not be deterred from this path of enlightenment. Not by man, beast, geocentrist or even deist. If I participate in this thread at all it will be only to question, without disagreement, such that I can gain appreciation of all the points of view on display.For most other participants SO seems to meet what CS insightfully described as "Target Practise".Enjoy.......

That's a rather...zen...outlook Personally, I simply cannot respect various points of view. I can respect the individual and that person's right to hold a view, but if their view is complete nonsense or unethical garbage I'll hold no respect for it.In this case, I'm just going to sit back and laugh.

Yeah well.....I am a very....Zen....kinda guy. You know that!! Where is the Solistically challenged Smoothie? This enlightenment shit is killing me. I need a giggle.

He's at my house getting fitted for his aluminum hat. - Oni

It protects his brain from the drag of the aether as it spins on the axis of the Earth.

Just for shits and giggles let's suppose the universe did revolve around the Earth.Why do we not see streaks of light from the stars as they move at speeds faster than the speed of light?For example the angular velocity of the 'apparent' rotation of the earth (or the universe revolving around a stationary earth, it really makes no difference as the frame of reference is the same) is 2π radians / 24 hrs or π/12 radians per hour or 15° per hour or 1525 ft/s (465 m/s)The linear velocity of the nearest star from the Sun, Proxima Centauri, would be v=ωr=15°/360° *2πr=1/24*2π(25,277,549,183,000)=6,617,646,901,172 miles per hour (1.0650x10¹³ km/h) where ω 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.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.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

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