|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Relativity is wrong... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 867 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined:
|
human writes: Are you seriously advocating geocentrism? troll writes: Yes I am. human writes: And if so, is your reason for doing so really the bible? troll writes: Nope, it's science. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member
|
Umm... no. That's how a hypothesis is tested in general. My question was why exactly is this test significant for relativity.
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined:
|
You are asking how an experiment which matches a prediction of relativity is significant for relativity? I really don't know what to say. SO also reports that in measuring time time is not an important parameter.
lyx writes: Please explain to me how one can measure time without referring to it.
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. Thomas Jefferson
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Actually they do match results but they are meaningless because there is no basis in reality for those numbers. What matches results? What is meaningless? Be specific...
Mathematically we would write 5-6=-1. Which would be mathematically correct, but it would not represent any real event. The same thing goes with relativity. 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.
Umm... no. That's how a hypothesis is tested in general. My question was why exactly is this test significant for relativity. 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?
This is not evidence for a rotating earth but that there is a force pulling on the pendullum. It could be from a rotating cosmos as well. The Lense-Thirring experiment explains that if the Universe was a rotating shell of matter and inside the shell, in it center was the Earth. There would be the same forces produced.
You are not understanding what you are reading. GR predicted the very thing you are using as evidence against it. From your link:
quote: I want evidene that all planets are orbiting the Sun. 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."
Yes, and I explained why this is meaningless since we have people like Paul Gerber who came to the same equation as Einstain for calculating the perihelion of the planets and he did it from a non relativistic point of view. Do you even read your links?
quote: Einstein writes:
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?
Yeth his theory was later shown to have some errors. Meaning, math alone does not make evidence for your hypothesis. No, it was proven to be inconsistent, which is different than "some errors." So why cite it as proof against GR?
But they are based on an unproven assumptiion of an orbiting Earth! 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.
Ans yes, his review was peer-reviewed. Either disproove it, or don't come to me with this kind of ad hominem arguments.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Are you seriously advocating geocentrism? Yes I am. On what do you base this conclusion? How do you, for example, explain the seasons?
Nope, it's science. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
quote:Nope, it's science. O RLY? In Message 44 you wrote:
quote:Yahoo uk.geocities.com/hesedyahu/TorahCreation at the bottom of that page:
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Oni writes: And btw, since when are you on the sidelines? 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.
Oni writes: Has watching cricket softened you up a bit? Rest assured that normal service will be resumed at some point after the cricket.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
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. 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/
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Hey Rahvin.
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. 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.
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 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.......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Rahvin writes: That's a rather...zen...outlook Yeah well.....I am a very....Zen....kinda guy. You know that!!
In this case, I'm just going to sit back and laugh. Where is the Solistically challenged Smoothie? This enlightenment shit is killing me. I need a giggle.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Where is the Solistically challenged Smoothie? He's at my house getting fitted for his aluminum hat. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3
|
He's at my house getting fitted for his aluminum hat. It protects his brain from the drag of the aether as it spins on the axis of the Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3132 days) Posts: 1548 Joined:
|
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024