Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Relativity is wrong...
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 3 of 633 (516649)
07-26-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Smooth Operator
07-26-2009 1:50 PM


SO writes:
Explain how this is any evidence for GR.
No you.
SO writes:
This is of course false.
No you are false.
SO writes:
tp://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006physics...8205C
Read this!
Science Digest, July 1980
SO writes:
Where does it say that?
What, that your an idiot. Your mama!
SO writes:
It's not an important parameter.
No, you are unimportant and a rabbit!
SO writes:
I already explained how. Now it's up to you to explain why it is not.
But I explain why not and how. Now it is your job to explain why I am correct.
SO writes:
No, I didn't ignore it. The stuff you cited agrees with me that it is the Sagnac effect that is used in GPS.
I didn't ignore it either. My stuff contradicts your stuff.
SO writes:
op believing in anything you read from "official" sourcs.
Stop believing stuff from "unofficial" sources.
SO writes:
No, it' syou who doesn't get it!
NO YOU DONT'T GET IT!
SO writes:
Yes there is an aether and absolute motion has been detected through it.
So why don't you believe in a flat earth. Here read my material:
Science Digest, July 1980
HONESTLY WHY ARE WE ELEVATING THIS STUPIDITY ON THIS BOARD???

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 1 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-26-2009 1:50 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by cavediver, posted 07-26-2009 4:39 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 14 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-27-2009 2:05 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 5 of 633 (516661)
07-26-2009 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by cavediver
07-26-2009 4:39 PM


Sorry I just finally through up my hands and say WTF.
I have a suspension that he is a minute-man internet troll. If not he is a really ignorant and gullible human being. Unfortunately his form of ignorance is endemic to the uneducated and deliberately stupid.

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 4 by cavediver, posted 07-26-2009 4:39 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Rahvin, posted 07-26-2009 5:19 PM DevilsAdvocate has seen this message but not replied
 Message 7 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-26-2009 5:25 PM DevilsAdvocate has seen this message but not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 16 of 633 (516813)
07-27-2009 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Smooth Operator
07-27-2009 2:05 PM


LOL. The humor and sarcasm were lost on you.
You provided only unsubstantiated one-liner replies to most of our arguments outlining the evidence for relativity.
I was getting out my fustration by mirroring your commenting style in which my reply to your post was about as meaniningless as yours.
Nevermind.
By the way, you do not own this topic. Percy, the administrator does. If you don't like it, than take your happy ass somewhere else.
Why don't you try to provide real data and evidence that support your cause instead of making up shit as you go.
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 14 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-27-2009 2:05 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-27-2009 3:31 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 26 of 633 (516850)
07-27-2009 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Smooth Operator
07-27-2009 3:31 PM


SO writes:
That's because you did the same.
When? I provided substantial evidence in which relativistic calculations are required in modern day applications such as GPS which you totally ignored and metaphorically stuck your fingers in your ears. You even stated you did not read the links I provided.
SO writes:
I didn't bother to check the other ones because this first one already proves me right.
It is interesting that the wikipedia articles itself which YOU are quoting from says the following:
Wikipeida writes:
According to Michelson/Gale, the experiment is compatible with both the idea of a stationary ether and special relativity. However, while the idea of stationary ether (except Lorentz's ether) contradicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, special relativity explains both experiments.
We can go on this proverbial merry-go-round say "my source is better than your source", however if you want to try to disprove the theories of relativity and the 90+ years of work based on them, you will have to provide something more conclusive than a wikipedia article, which ironically states that SR explains the MM experiment while saying that the M/G experiment is compatible with both the stationary aether and SR ideas (meaning this experiment does not conclusively prove one or the other, however there are many, many other experiments as well as applications that do prove SR).
SO writes:
Thisis teh Michelson-Gale experiment. It detected the rotational motion between Earth and aether.
Saying it so, doesn't make it so.
BTW, it detected the angular velocity of the Earth with no outside reference (in other words it measured the angular velocity of the Earth w/ reference to spacetime itself) as shown here:
Wikipedia writes:
The ring interferometer of the Michelson-Gale experiment was not calibrated by comparison with an outside reference (which was not possible, because the setup was fixed to the Earth).
Wikipedia writes:
So it's either the aether rotating or, it's the Earth.
So are you saying the Earth does not rotate??
SO writes:
But the point remains there is aether.
Baseless assumption.
SO writes:
The predicted value was 237 shifts out of 1000, +/- 5 shifts of error. The measured value was 230. This would represent the Earth rotation in 24 hours. This shows that they got almost the exact number. Which means they detected aether.
Or they detected the effects of SR which is why this experiment is inconclusive in proving one or the other.

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 17 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-27-2009 3:31 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-28-2009 3:03 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 39 of 633 (517019)
07-28-2009 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by onifre
07-28-2009 6:55 PM


Re: Experiments
Me thinks he is a sciece forum troll getting a kick out of the amount of attention he is getting here.
This is good debating practice though.
If we can't effectively, rationally and logically counter his arguments we are in serious trouble.

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 38 by onifre, posted 07-28-2009 6:55 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by onifre, posted 07-28-2009 8:44 PM DevilsAdvocate has seen this message but not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 41 of 633 (517025)
07-29-2009 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Smooth Operator
07-28-2009 3:03 PM


SO writes:
Myself writes:
When? I provided substantial evidence in which relativistic calculations are required in modern day applications such as GPS which you totally ignored and metaphorically stuck your fingers in your ears. You even stated you did not read the links I provided.
Actually, what you provided were links that claimed that they were using the Sagnac effect as the main reference.
Actually the Sagnac effect is fully consistent with relativity not contradictory. For example onf of the links I provided state this:
Relativity in the Global Positioning System" by Dr. Neil Ashby writes:
The purpose of this article is to explain how relativistic effects are accounted for in the GPS. Although clock velocities are small and gravitational fields are weak near the earth, they give rise to significant relativistic effects. These effects include first- and second-order Doppler frequency shifts of clocks due to their relative motion, gravitational frequency shifts, and the Sagnac effect due to earth’s rotation. If such effects are not accounted for properly, unacceptably large errors in GPS navigation and time transfer will result. In the GPS one can find many examples of the application of fundamental relativity principles
For atomic clocks in satellites, it is most convenient to consider the motions as they would be observed in the local ECI frame. Then the Sagnac effect becomes irrelevant. (The Sagnac effect on moving ground-based receivers must still be considered.) Gravitational frequency shifts and second-order Doppler shifts must be taken into account together. In this section I shall discuss in detail these two relativistic effects, using the expression for the elapsed coordinate
For a low earth orbiter such as the Space Shuttle, the velocity is so great that slowing due to time dilation is the dominant effect, while for a GPS satellite clock, the gravitational blueshift is greater
There is an interesting story about this frequency offset. At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be incorporated. A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by general relativity, then the synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in . The difference was well within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii.As understanding of the numerous sources of error in the GPS slowly improved, it eventually made sense to incorporate the correct relativistic calculation.
GALILEO is a project of the European Space Agency, intended to put about 30 satellites carrying atomic clocks in orbit. In contrast to GPS which is free to users, the GALILEO system ultimately will be funded by user fees. Information released in 2006 by the GALILEO project states that relativistic corrections will be the responsibility of the users (that is, the receivers). This means that GNSS devices capable of receiving both GPS and GALILEO signals will have to contain additional relativity software to process GALILEO signals. Since no factory frequency offset is applied to atomic clocks in the GALILEO satellites, relativity effects will cause satellite clock time to ramp away from TAI and will require large correction terms to be transmitted to users.
BEIDOU is a satellite navigation system being developed and deployed by the People’s Republic of China. In its early stages, there were three satellites capable of transponding timing signals between a master control station and receivers on the ground. Timed pulses are sent from the control station, to the satellites, and then to ground-based receivers, which sends them back through the satellites to the control station. With the timing information, and topographic information (the receivers have to be on earth’s surface), the receiver position can be computed and relayed back to the receiver. Since receivers must also transmit, they are bulky. The principal relativistic correction involved here is the Sagnac effect, which can amount to several hundred nanoseconds.
The GPS is a remarkable laboratory for applications of the concepts of special and general relativity. GPS is also valuable as an outstanding source of pedagogical examples. It is deserving of more scrutiny from relativity experts.
Alternative global navigation systems such as GLONASS, GALILEO, and BEIDOU are all based on concepts of clock synchronization based on a locally inertial reference system freely falling along with the earth. This concept, fundamentally dependent on a relativistic view of space and time, appears to have been amply confirmed by the success of GPS.
Plans are being made to put laser-cooled clock(s) having stabilities of and accuracies of , on the International Space Station. This will open up additional possibilities for testing relativity as well as for making improvements in GPS and in other potential navigational satellite systems.
Also
Around-the-World Relativistic Sagnac Experiment Allan, D.W., Weiss, M., and Ashby, N. Science, 228, 69—70, (1985) writes:
In 1971 Hafele and Keating carried portable atomic clocks east and then west around the world and verified the Sagnac effect, a special relativity effect attributable to the earth's rotation. In the study reported here observations of the effect were made by using electromagnetic signals instead of portable clocks to make clock comparisons. Global Positioning System satellites transmit signals that can be viewed simultaneously from remote stations on the earth; thus an around-the-world Sagnac experiment can be performed with electromagnetic signals. The effect is larger than that occurring when portable clocks are used. The average error over a 3-month experiment was only 5 nanoseconds.
SO writes:
Myself writes:
We can go on this proverbial merry-go-round say "my source is better than your source", however if you want to try to disprove the theories of relativity and the 90+ years of work based on them, you will have to provide something more conclusive than a wikipedia article, which ironically states that SR explains the MM experiment while saying that the M/G experiment is compatible with both the stationary aether and SR ideas (meaning this experiment does not conclusively prove one or the other, however there are many, many other experiments as well as applications that do prove SR).
Actually I also gave a link to the PR article. But the thing is, the test does not square with the SR. No if you take into account the Michelson Morley experiment too!
See above. Quote the exact references in your replies so we know what you are talking about. It is useless throwing links back and forth to each other without knowing exactly where you are pulling this information from. I will do the same.
BTW, the MM experiment which was created to test for the presence of a luminescent ether actually disproved the presence of this ether.
This is what Michelson himself says in his ‘The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether’ article describing his experiment in American Journal of Science, 1881, 22: 120-129:
Michelson writes:
The interpretation of these results is that there is no displacement of the interference bands. The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous.
This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation of the phenomenon of aberration which has been hitherto generally accepted, and which presupposes that the earth moves through the ether, the latter remaining at rest.
SO writes:
Experiment gave the measured speed of 8 km/s. The predicted speed was 30 km/s.
My understanding is that they incorrectly calculated the rotational velocity of the Earth using in which they failed to utilize the superposition property of waves. Taking this into consideration the calculations accurately depict a rotational speed for the Earth of 30 km/s. However, they may have inadvertently also detected the absolute motion of the Earth through space itself Source: The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery
of Absolute Motion
SO writes:
So they actually interpreted this as a null result and said that there was no aether. So in other words, relativity came along and said that light speed is independent from the observer and that's why we got the null result.
A null result means that they did not detect the presence of an ether based on the results of the experiment. There was 0.005 fringe shift compared to the expected 0.04 fringe shift if ether slowed down the light. Which in taking into account a 130 year old experiment using antiquated equipment is pretty close to 0?
SO writes:
But than came the MG experiment which gave the right predicted results, which means that there is an aetehr, and that it is the aether that is rotating.
Those results being what? Please connect the dots. Again saying so doesn’t make it so.
So the only reason why we got the null result in the MM experiment is because the Earth is not moving.
I am not even sure if this is worth debating? Are you fucking serious?
Um, ok. So how do you explain the retrograde motions of the planets in the sky? How about the phases of Venus? How do you explain a Foucault pendulum? The parallax shift of stars every 6 months? The Coriolis effect of hurricanes and other weather phenomena? etc. etc.
How the hell do we send geosynchronous satellites to orbit the Earth and not fall out of the sky if the Earth is not rotating?
BTW, we get the null result (meaning virtually no fringe shifting) because there is no difference in time the light proceeds in both perpendicular directions and returns to the interferometer detector. This means there is nothing slowing down the light in either direction aka no ether.
SO writes:
So you can't say relativity explains the MM experiment since the recorede speed was supposed to be 0.
No, the differences between the speed of light going in two perpendicular directions are supposed to be near 0 (to prove there is no ether) not the recorded speed of light!?! This experiment was nearly 130 years ago and the results were pretty close to 0. New experiments result in an anisotropy of to 210-13. That is 0 when you take into consideration the inaccuracy of the equipment involved as I stated previously.
SO writes:
Myself writes:
Saying it so, doesn't make it so.
BTW, it detected the angular velocity of the Earth with no outside reference (in other words it measured the angular velocity of the Earth w/ reference to spacetime itself) as shown here:
The scientists said so, not me.
Show me.
SO writes:
And what they meant by an outside reference was something outside the mechanism. The aether is passing through all matter, so it is obviously inside the mechanism. Why do you think they used light? Becasue the aether is supposed to be a medium that carries light waves. And in reference to that they were measuring the rotation.
Are we talking about MM still? If so that was not measuring the rotation of anything. It was measuring the speed of light traveling in two perpendicular directions. As far as the MG experiment, accurately measuring the angular speed of the Earth in reference to spacetime was a beneficial by-product of this experiment and it very closely matched the sidereal estimate of the Earth’s rotation.
SO writes:
Myself writes:
So are you saying the Earth does not rotate??
Isn't it obious?
Answered above. Show me answers to the above questions about phenomena that can only be explained by a rotating Earth and heliocentric solar system.
SO writes:
Myself writes:
SO writes:
But the point remains there is aether.
Baseless assumption.
It's not an assumption it's a common knowledge.
Common by who? The flat earth society and geocentric nutcases?
SO writes:
The firnge shifts in MG experiment would be 0 if there were no aether.
Now we are shifting back to the MG experiment? No, because in the MG experiment we have to take into consideration the Sagnac effect which we didn’t have to do with the MM experiment due to its different construction (MM’s round-trip propogation path vice MG’s two rectangular interferometers). As a result the MG will result in a non-0 fringe shift when taking into consideration the Sagnac effect. See ‘Reinterpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment based on the GPS Sagnac correction’ Ching-Chuan Su 2001 Europhys. Lett. 56 170-174 (I was able to access it using my university’s online research database).
SO writes:
Myself writes:
Or they detected the effects of SR which is why this experiment is inconclusive in proving one or the other.
How exactly does SR produce fringe shifts? It doesn't.
SR doesn’t ‘produce’ anything. SR is a theory which explains the nature of spacetime.
Fringe shifts are the measurement of out of phase light patterns as a result of an interferometry experiment such as the Michelson-Morley experiment. Fringe shifts result from a delay of one light beam going one direction from another going perpendicular the same distance. An ether would result in a fringe shift of 4% the size of a single fringe. This did not occur i.e. the fringe shift was less than 20% of what would be expected if an ether existed (recent more accurate experiments result in a nearly close to 0 fringe shift ). Therefore this experiment does not contradict the SR model of spacetime.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-28-2009 3:03 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-29-2009 1:51 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 60 of 633 (517140)
07-29-2009 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Smooth Operator
07-29-2009 1:51 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-29-2009 1:51 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by NosyNed, posted 07-30-2009 1:11 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 67 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-30-2009 3:45 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 77 by Perdition, posted 07-30-2009 10:14 AM DevilsAdvocate has seen this message but not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 76 of 633 (517198)
07-30-2009 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Smooth Operator
07-30-2009 3:45 AM


SO writes:
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.
I also mentioned the Sun or are you going to argue that the Sun is less than 91 million miles from the Earth?
How do you explain that Venus is never more than 46 degrees away from the Sun and Mercury even a small degree angle from the Sun? Or how do you explain how the phases of Venus, the Moon and every other planetary body in the solar system fit perfectly in a heliocentric model of the solar system? How does that fit into your geocentric model?
SO writes:
Again. This interpretaton is based on an assumption that redshif represents an object going away from us. It doesn't
I am not going to argue bare links. You will have to explain it yourself.
SO writes:
Redshift can not indicate speed of recession because we have observational galaxies with vastly different redshifts, actually touching each other.
Again I am not going to argue bare links.
How can you know they are touching each other? Explain. I am all ears.
SO writes:
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.
You would have to chuck out all of astronomy, physics, and any other scientific research and discoveries for the last 500 years to adopt your warped sense of reality.
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 67 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-30-2009 3:45 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 8:02 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 82 of 633 (517226)
07-30-2009 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Smooth Operator
07-30-2009 4:55 AM


SO writes:
You are just interpreting observed events as the effects of curved space.
Um, that is what science is all about. Explaining natural phenomena based on experimentation and observation and then making predictions based on these explanations. If the predictions fail, than you modify or chuck that hypothesis out the window and come up with another one.
Or should we base all of the scientific revolutions and technilogical advances on your make shit up as you go philosophy. Are you going to next deny that we visited the moon or sent spacecraft to nearly all the planets in the solar system? Why not just deny your own existence and be done with it.
SO writes:
You don't know it's curved space really doing it. Because you never even saw curved space!
Can you see the wind? How do you know it exists?
Pssst, [whisper] because you can see the effects of the wind on other matter. The same principle applies to curved space.
Ok, I am done with this merry go round, have fun with your geocentric existence. I and most sane people will enjoy the fruits of science and technilogical advancement.

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 70 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-30-2009 4:55 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 8:12 PM DevilsAdvocate has seen this message but not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 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 3131 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

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 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

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 136 of 633 (517621)
08-01-2009 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Smooth Operator
08-01-2009 8:02 PM


SO writes:
Myself writes:
I also mentioned the Sun or are you going to argue that the Sun is less than 91 million miles from the Earth?
It probablly is, but I'm not sure. I'm accepting this distance for now.
I am so glad we have to run all our scientific theories and research through your exhaustive knowledge. What would we ever do without you? Science would come to a screaching halt!
LOL, you do realize that the same scientists that determined the Earth to be on average 91 million miles from the Earth are the same ones that accept the heliocentric model of the solar system?
SO writes:
Myself writes:
How do you explain that Venus is never more than 46 degrees away from the Sun and Mercury even a small degree angle from the Sun? Or how do you explain how the phases of Venus, the Moon and every other planetary body in the solar system fit perfectly in a heliocentric model of the solar system? How does that fit into your geocentric model?
I already told you. With a Tychonic model where all the planets orbit the Sun except for Earth, and it's moon. The Sun with the other planets than in turn orbits the Earth.
Or it can be explained in Ptolomaic model, using epycicles.
LOL, you are a troll and just doing this for kicks aren't you! You even admit you have no fucking clue what you are talking about! You can't even agree upon a single model of the solar system.
SO writes:
We have observations of galaxies touching each other.
Maybe because some galaxies are in front of other galaxies when viewed from Earth!?!
SO writes:
No, you would just need to accept other theories that were developed besides those that you accept in the last 500 years.
Like astrology, divination, psychic powers, etc.
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 112 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 8:02 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 10:56 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 142 of 633 (517638)
08-01-2009 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Smooth Operator
08-01-2009 10:56 PM


SO writes:
Myself writes:
LOL, you do realize that the same scientists that determined the Earth to be on average 91 million miles from the Earth are the same ones that accept the heliocentric model of the solar system?
You mean, form the Sun? Yeah, but you see, that's done by a radar, not by parallax.
Wrong again. Because the sun does not have a solid surface to reflect radio beams off of, it absorbs any energy we shoot at it without reflecting it back. Therefore using radar to determine the distance to the sun does not work.
The way astronomers accurately determined the distance to the Sun was by first using radar to accurately determine the distance to Venus. Then by taking this distance and the angle between Venus and the Sun they derived through triginometry the third side of the triangle, i.e. the distance between the Earth and the Sun.
And no they do not believe in a heliocentric model. They believe in an acentric model. No scientist today thinks that heliocentrism is true. They all accept relativity which is acentric by default.
I don't even know what the fuck this means. I have taken college astronomy and this still does not make a lick of sense.
SO writes:
No, it's just means there are a lot of different geocentric models, jsut as there are lot's of heliocentric models. This is called science. There are even Arab geocentric models, that were used by Copernicus to build his heliocentric one.
No shit Sherlock! But one of them has to be correct! Do you just fucking google everything without comprehending what you are reading? You really have no clue how to decipher the current scientific understanding of reality with outdated and superceded models and hypotheses or even pure pseudoscientific crap.
SO writes:
These are standing right besides each other and they are touching each other.
How do you know these galaxies are "standing right beside each other and touching each other"? By what method of determining distance are you determing this?
SO writes:
Nope. Everythiong I told you that you had no idea that it even existed.
How do you know what I do or do not know? You know NOTHING about me. Stop pretending you do.
SO writes:
And stop calling me a troll you filthy piece of shit.
Actually calling you a troll would be a complement otherwise you are one of the most ignorant people I have ever met.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 10:56 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-02-2009 12:09 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3131 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 143 of 633 (517640)
08-02-2009 12:03 AM


Just curious how the hell did we send all these spacecraft to other planets, moons, comets, etc using the wrong model of the solar system aka a heliocentric instead of a geocentric model of the solar system?????
How the fuck does that work?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-02-2009 12:14 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024