Relativity is wrong...

I'm fairly well travelled, and I have camped in the far north of Norway under the Midnight Sun. How does Smooth Operator explain this?

quote:

---

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?

---

Oh, I don't know, maybe because gravity bends light?

quote:

---

From inside the ship, of course. Or outside of it, in a spacesuit.

---

And is your ship orbitin the Earth, or is it orbiting the Sun, or is it static relative to something else?

quote:

---

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.

---

Well that's the problem. How do you know you are stiing still in space. You are still relative to what?

quote:

---

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).

---

If that were true that all places on earth would have the same season and climate at the same time. Which they do not.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well you are the one who is gullible enough to believe we are spinning without evidence in the first place. So that would make you even dumber.

quote:

---

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?

---

I already told you, it's irrelevant.

quote:

---

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.

---

I've read it already, that's old news... yawn...

Wrong, Smooth. Gravity isn't a "thing" that does anything. It's the result of mass and energy curving spacetime. A photon, just like everything else, follows the nearest thing to a straight line in curved space, refered to as geodesic.When light follows curved space, say around a star, it produces an effect called gravitational lensing which proves that the space around the star is curved. This is an observed phenomenon. This observed phenomenon was predicted by Einstein's GR theory, proving, once again, how well GR functions to describe spacetime.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Do you believe in gravity? In a Newtonian sense that is.

---

Of course I do. It's an observable scientific fact. You can feel the gravity, there is nothing to doubt here. Unlike Earth's orbit arounf the Sun, which is not observable.The best explanation for gravity yet, that I accept, comes from Nikola Tesla. It's called the "Dynamic Theory of Gravity". The reason why it is so good is because it works equally on macro and micro scale. Meaning, it's the unified field theory. Something that relativity and quantum mechanich still have to achive.To bad he never got to publish his theory, but we can certainly gleen what he meant in his public speeches. And judging by his inventions, we can say that his theoretic background was at least as good.http://peswiki.com/...edia:Tesla's_Dynamic_Theory_of_Gravity

quote:

---

Do you accept the concept of mass in terms of resistance to changes in motion (i.e. inertia)?

---

Yes, it's an observable scientific fact.

quote:

---

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?

---

Who says they are more massive? Even if they were, why wouldn't they orbit the Earth? If the universe is rotating, and the Earth is at the center, than they are orbiting the Earth, werther they are more massive or not. And we do have some good evidence that the universe is rotating.Maybe we can help . . . : Page Not Found : Arts, Sciences & Engineering : University of Rochester

quote:

---

And what were you prior to that?

---

A heliocentrist obviously.

quote:

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

quote:

---

I am not going to argue bare links. You will have to explain it yourself.

---

It's very easy. We have observations of galaxies touching each other. Yet, their redshifts are vastly differet. Obviously there is a problem with recession speed interpretation of redshifts.

quote:

---

Again I am not going to argue bare links.

​

How can you know they are touching each other? Explain. I am all ears.

---

I gave you an explanation twice. YOu can see they are touching by the picture that was shown in the link.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, you would just need to accept other theories that were developed besides those that you accept in the last 500 years.

quote:

---

You don't respong to the refutations of your position either. All you do is say: "Nuh-uh" and then jump to the next point

---

No. I'm not going to respond to that because it's an accusation that my views are religious. This is not a scientific argument so I have no reason to respond to it.

What evidence would you expect to see if the Earth were revolving around the Sun that is absent?

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

If this were true, than the entire Earth should experience winter and summer at the same time. That is not the case however. Due to the inclination of the Earth's axis one hemisphere is in summer while the other is in winter.

---

No, that would actually be the case in your model. Where the Earth just turns on it's axis and we have the different season, yet the Sun's intensity is the same.Anyway, it's no as easy as that. The Sun, no only goes further away, but also orbits in a spiraling fashion. Here you go, everything is explained here.Google Sites: Sign-in

quote:

---

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.

---

And relativity has failed the tests of light's isotropy. It's supposed to go to the trash can.

quote:

---

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.

---

Was your shit of curved space observed or assumed first?

quote:

---

Can you see the wind? How do you know it exists?

---

Because I can feel it. Can you feel curved space? Besides atoms have been observed. Has curved space?

quote:

---

Pssst, [whisper] because you can see the effects of the wind on other matter. The same principle applies to curved space.

---

No it doesn't, because we have seen everything we need to infer the existance of wind, not so for curved space.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well good for you, and don't come back.

quote:

---

Do you realize that this means that, to believe this, you must concede that the earth moves after all? If the sun's orbit around the earth explains the seasons, it means it orbits the earth in one year. Yet we see the sun rise and set every day. The only explanation for that must be that the earth rotates on it's own axis every 24 hours. Or, "eppur si muove", as our old friend Galileo would have it. (Although not quite the way he meant it.)

---

No, the Earth, doesn't move. The Sun is orbiting the Earth once a day.

quote:

---

It is all about the tilt of the Earth's axis. Many people believe that the temperature changes because the Earth is closer to the sun in summer and farther from the sun in winter. In fact, the Earth is farthest from the sun in July and is closest to the sun in January!

---

If that was so, the whole Earth would have same seasons all the time.This is a much better explanation.Google Sites: Sign-in

If you don't understand how the tilt in the Earth's axis causes different seasons in the northern and southern hemispheres, a very simple concept, there's no reason to credit you with understanding any of the considerably more complex ideas you're talking about.Edited by subbie, : Fix quote code

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

We have directly observed that, in every other case, objects of lower mass orbit objects of higher mass. Exoplanets all orbit their stars; all of our system's other planets orbit the Sun even in a geocentric model; all moons orbit their respective planets.

---

But than the question arises, how do you know the Sun is more massive than the Earth? And do you know that the first direct observation of an exoplanet was last year?Attention Required! | CloudflareHow's that for your observations?

quote:

---

The assumption that Earth is the center of everything is nothing more than an absurdly self-centered position (literally), and it makes modeling the movements of teh planets more difficult because it requires new mechanisms to explain why the Earth is different from everything else we observe, for the specific motion of the Sun, etc.

---

No, it's our logical starting point. Everywhere we look, we see that we are in the center of everything.