|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Relativity is wrong... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined:
|
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. They would? I don't see why?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote: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:No, because we can see that the grass is green. We can't see the Earth orbiting the Sun, now can we?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
At the risk of going insane....
Smooth Operator writes:
Because it proves that the prediction made with relativity is true.
How does this test give evidence for relativty? That's my question. No, because we can see that the grass is green. We can't see the Earth orbiting the Sun, now can we?
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote: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: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:That's not what I was asking for. Look at my previous post for an explanation. quote: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: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: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 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: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:But he did get the right equation. That's the point. Math alone is not evidence. quote: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:Are you telling me that I didn't give you the links to his work?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote: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:These are the 4 main experiments. But there are others. quote:geo - Restricted Area quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:I'm not even going to respond to all of this. I'm not even a Christian. So basicly you are totally wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Oh, I don't know... maybe because they are not moving that fast? quote: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: quote:See. it' all based on an assumption. All the measurements of the "distant" stars are. Parallax - Wikipedia
quote:Again. This interpretaton is based on an assumption that redshif represents an object going away from us. It doesn't. quote: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.htm So 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Which are based only on a mathematical abstraction, not real observable casues. Curved space is not an observational cause, it is only infered. quote:Great, how do you propose we make this experiment happen?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
Smooth Operator writes:
You can't see "spacetime", if that's what you mean, you can however see the effects of curved spacetime.
Which are based only on a mathematical abstraction, not real observable casues. Curved space is not an observational cause, it is only infered. Great, how do you propose we make this experiment happen?
How about with a spaceship?... I hunt for the truth
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote: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: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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2325 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined:
|
Smooth Operator writes:
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?
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! What about it? From which reference frame will you be looking at the Earth?
From inside the ship, of course. Or outside of it, in a spacesuit.
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?
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined:
|
I'm not entering this debate, but I can't let this slip by:
The seasons are explained by Sun's orbit. In winter it is far from us, in summer it is closer to us. 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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 764 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined:
|
The seasons are explained by Sun's orbit. In winter it is far from us, in summer it is closer to us. Well, yes, in Ausrralia. Five million km closer at perihelion, in January, than in July. The smell of troll is overwhelming in here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
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...
I really don't care about the LHC so don't bring it up again. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
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?
I'm a geocentrist since last 6 months. And what were you prior to that? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024