Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Relativity is wrong...
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4732 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


(1)
Message 91 of 633 (517247)
07-30-2009 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Smooth Operator
07-30-2009 3:32 AM


Re: Unbelievable!
Re geocentricity, how do you explain parallax? how do you explain the apparent motions of other planets? Do you believe in epicycles?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-30-2009 3:32 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-30-2009 2:28 PM Richard Townsend has not replied
 Message 122 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 8:40 PM Richard Townsend has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 92 of 633 (517248)
07-30-2009 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Rahvin
07-30-2009 2:00 PM


Re: Eppur si muove!
I didn't think of the tilt thing..
but after I wrote that I though that you could image the sun's orbit gradually increasing, spiraling out, and then it somehow reverts and starts gradually decreasing, spiraling back towards us...then I thought: but that goes against the laws of physics....
But you're right, if we're gonna throw out some science we could just as easily through out the physics that it goes against too.
But that brings up my other point that I had earlier in the hypocrisy of him using the "science" that he does reference, or saying that his position is not based on religion but is based on science. He picks and chooses the science that fits his position and discards that science that disproves it.
You could take any position with that stance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Rahvin, posted 07-30-2009 2:00 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 93 of 633 (517249)
07-30-2009 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Richard Townsend
07-30-2009 2:10 PM


Re: Unbelievable!
how do you explain parallax?
After the geocentirism came up I've been thinking of this little animation I saw (i thought on wiki) of a simulation of a time lapse of the orbit of a panet (mars or venud, iirc). But there was a little loopty-loop in the orbit that was impossible to have if the Earth was stationary. I couldn't even remember the name of the type of orbit or whatever, but I think this parallax is close.
Anyone out there know what I'm referring to?
This image is what I'm talking about, but the animation was so much more effective in demonstrating it.
It pretty much proves without a doubt that Earth is moving.

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 94 by Perdition, posted 07-30-2009 2:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 94 of 633 (517251)
07-30-2009 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by New Cat's Eye
07-30-2009 2:28 PM


Re: Unbelievable!
The planets seeming to reverse course during their orbits is called retrograde motion, and yeah, it occurs because we catch up to them in our orbit compared to theirs (or they catch up to us, if they're closer to the sun than we are.)
The ancients noticed this and conceived of the idea of epicycles. These were essentially loops on which the planets turned while also going around the Earth.
Parralax is the apparant motion of the stars as we move around the sun. For instance, on side of the sun, we can see Orion, but on the other side of the sun, we can't. Parralax can be used to determine the distance to stars, since can measure the angle of difference between their apparent location, and we know the baseline of the triangle, which is the diameter of the Earth's orbit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-30-2009 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-30-2009 3:04 PM Perdition has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 95 of 633 (517255)
07-30-2009 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Perdition
07-30-2009 2:52 PM


Re: Unbelievable!
The planets seeming to reverse course during their orbits is called retrograde motion
That's it!!! Thank you.
Okay, here's the gif I was thinking of:
Impossible if the Earth is stationary, not based on an assumption, and yet directly observable.
It should fit SO's criteria and prove the Earth is in motion.
I'm curious how he'll weasel his way out of this one. Probably by not responding at all :-\

ABE:
Here's the wiki page I got the image from:
Retrograde and prograde motion - Wikipedia
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Perdition, posted 07-30-2009 2:52 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Perdition, posted 07-30-2009 3:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 96 of 633 (517256)
07-30-2009 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by New Cat's Eye
07-30-2009 3:04 PM


Re: Unbelievable!
Impossible if the Earth is stationary, not based on an assumption, and yet directly observable.
It should fit SO's criteria and prove the Earth is in motion.
I'm curious how he'll weasel his way out of this one. Probably by not responding at all :-\
Well, technically, it's not impossible just highly unlikely. As I said, the ancients "solved" the problem with ever more complex sets of epicycles upon epicycles. The problem comes in trying to explain how those epicycles work now that we know the planets aren't just lights on the dome of the sky, but are rather large bodies flying through space under the laws of physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-30-2009 3:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-30-2009 3:21 PM Perdition has replied
 Message 101 by onifre, posted 07-30-2009 6:16 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 97 of 633 (517258)
07-30-2009 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Perdition
07-30-2009 3:13 PM


Re: Unbelievable!
I guess SO will have to argue that the stars aren't really big fireballs really far away in space and are just these little lights in the firmament that move around.
SO:
Is the aether inside or outside of the firmament?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Perdition, posted 07-30-2009 3:13 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Perdition, posted 07-30-2009 3:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 98 of 633 (517260)
07-30-2009 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by New Cat's Eye
07-30-2009 3:21 PM


Re: Unbelievable!
I guess SO will have to argue that the stars aren't really big fireballs really far away in space and are just these little lights in the firmament that move around.
Well, that is how they look. And as anyone over the age of 2 knows, everything is exactly how it appears at first glance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-30-2009 3:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-30-2009 4:01 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 99 of 633 (517262)
07-30-2009 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Perdition
07-30-2009 3:37 PM


Re: Unbelievable!
Well, that is how they look. And as anyone over the age of 2 knows, everything is exactly how it appears at first glance.
In Message 62, SO write:
quote:
No, because we can see that the grass is green. We can't see the Earth orbiting the Sun, now can we?
What a moron!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Perdition, posted 07-30-2009 3:37 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Richard Townsend, posted 07-30-2009 4:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 4732 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


(1)
Message 100 of 633 (517263)
07-30-2009 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by New Cat's Eye
07-30-2009 4:01 PM


Re: Unbelievable!
Well, technically, it's not impossible just highly unlikely. As I said, the ancients "solved" the problem with ever more complex sets of epicycles upon epicycles. The problem comes in trying to explain how those epicycles work now that we know the planets aren't just lights on the dome of the sky, but are rather large bodies flying through space under the laws of physics.
I am sure SO will find a way - I'm interested to see what it is!
The problem is even worse if we take into account precession of orbits - particularly Mercury's. Ironically that's explained by general relativity. Or not if you're SO.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-30-2009 4:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 101 of 633 (517275)
07-30-2009 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Perdition
07-30-2009 3:13 PM


there's more
The other problem is the how and what would cause the Sun (and everything else) to revolve around an object of smaller density?
We know from Newton that mass is the source of gravity, but special relativity says that mass is the sum of energy and linear momentum density, so all matter must be moving to curve spacetime. This is why we know the Earth is moving but also that the Sun is as well, thus creating a gravitational force.
But in SO's geocentric model there is no explanation as to why anything revolves around anything else - big or small. It fails to explain even simply things like, why do we have a moon?
It just seems to leave every single question unanswered. How would planets even form if mass density didn't curve spacetime? Why is there gravitational lensing? How does a star form? How do black holes form? What makes objects collide with planets, and other objects for that matter? - What he doesn't understand is that pointing out a few anomalies, or one or two people who disagree with certain specifics about relativity, doesn't change anything when we take the system as a whole.
Small objects revolve around larger ones because space is curved, space is curved due to energy and momentum density, so we can't have curvature without motion. This explains, for the most part, the how and why smaller objects orbit larger ones, and we observe the planets acting according to predictions. Even if it was 100% wrong, any other thoery would still have to make predictions that match observation. Furthermore, any other theory would also have to explain what gravity is and how it works.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Perdition, posted 07-30-2009 3:13 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by bluescat48, posted 07-31-2009 12:23 AM onifre has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


(1)
Message 102 of 633 (517308)
07-31-2009 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by onifre
07-30-2009 6:16 PM


Re: there's more
But in SO's geocentric model there is no explanation as to why anything revolves around anything else - big or small. It fails to explain even simply things like, why do we have a moon?
That is the point. Whenever someone tries to debunk a robust theory, they may make a seemingly legitimate point, but in the process creates numerous other problems which their solution makes.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by onifre, posted 07-30-2009 6:16 PM onifre has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


(1)
Message 103 of 633 (517310)
07-31-2009 1:52 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Perdition
07-30-2009 1:49 PM


Technically, the earth and the Sun are revolving around their common center of mass ... but it is 'inside' the sun ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Perdition, posted 07-30-2009 1:49 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-01-2009 6:41 AM slevesque has not replied

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


(1)
Message 104 of 633 (517491)
08-01-2009 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by NosyNed
07-30-2009 1:11 AM


Re: Smears?
NosyNed writes:
Myself writes:
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?
Because to a stationary observer (in this case someone on a stationary Earth around which rotates the universe) objects traveling at the speed of light would appear to be flattened and stretched to infinity. However, if an object could hypothetically travel faster than speed of light because this defies the laws of physics it is unknown exactly how this would appear to a stationary observer however my own prediction is that these objects would still be stretched to infinity but moving in backwards through time (cavediver or someone else correct me if I am wrong here).
Additionally the problem of course with using this analogy is that Smooth Operator rejects the ToR and all of known physics outright anyways so this is really a moot point.

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 61 by NosyNed, posted 07-30-2009 1:11 AM NosyNed has not replied

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


(1)
Message 105 of 633 (517494)
08-01-2009 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by slevesque
07-31-2009 1:52 AM


Technically, the earth and the Sun are revolving around their common center of mass ... but it is 'inside' the sun ...
Very true. Maybe this is the epicycles that SO is claiming that the planets and even the Sun itself exhibit.
Problem with this though is like you stated these are very small 'epicycles', which are not observable from Earth with the naked eye or crude instruments but only by using very accurate instruments to determine the center of mass of a planetary body and the rotation around this center point.
Sidebar: I would almost think that SO was a science troll seeking to intellectualy challenge other scientific minded people on our assumptions of common knowledge and encourage deeper thinking. However due to his other racist remarks and abject stupidity on StormFront my conclusion is that HE really is this ignorant and thinks the universe revolves around the Earth.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by slevesque, posted 07-31-2009 1:52 AM slevesque 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