|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Relativity is wrong... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
In the link that Smooth is providing, the suns-path-diagram, click on the name of the person credited for this work.
Clicking on, Allen Davis, leads you to a religious site that spouts hate. So, catholic scientist was right, this is a religious based argument. None of it is supported with evidence that has been peer-reviewed. It's pseudo-science garbage. If any of it were true it would be subjected to the scientific method. It hasn't been. It's garbage. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5144 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Already explained before. quote: Yahoo
quote:Everybody does, you too, you just don't know it. The heliocentric model has epicycles too. quote: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/...ect/retrograde/copernican.html But as you can see, the Tychonic system requires less epicycles than Ptolemaic one. Tychonic system - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
The heliocentric model has epicycles too. Wrong. The need for epicycles was eliminated upon recognition that planetary orbits were ellipses, rather than circles. I don't believe in epicycles, nor does Richard Townsend, nor does anyone with even an elementary understanding of astronomy. Once again, you are telling us much more about your level of ignorance than anything else. 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 Jefferson For 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 Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5144 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
Well again, your ignorance know no limits.
quote:Actually it is, in the Dynamic theory of gravity tesla proposed. In this theory everything icluding gravity can be explained by electromagnetic forces. quote:Or, or, ummm... maybe it's the effect of the aether, producing gravity, that is bending light? Did you ever think that is possible? And no, once again, Einstein was not the one to predict it. A known plagiarist that he was, he coopted this well known phenomena into his theory. Light bending by gravity was already predicted before him.
quote: Sabine Hossenfelder: Backreaction: Light Deflection at the Sun Please go away, and educate yourself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5144 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:But he first one, after the Ptolemaic system, did still need them. So what I meant to say is that by placing the Sun by itself in the center does not solve the problem of epicycles. You need, eliptical orbits. Unlike the geocentric Tychonic system which doesn't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5144 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Well you are obviously a fucking retard. When did I ever quote any biblical statement's? Never. So how can you say my arguments are religious? Is it my fault that the authors of that article have religious views that they like to connect with this topic? And just by saying that links I provide are not peer-reviewd doesn't make it so. Was Michelson-Morley experiment not peer reviewed, how about Michelson-Gale? The Sagnac experiment? Get a life you idiot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
Does this mean that you agree that a heliocentric model with elliptical orbits accurately describes our observations?
Also, I'd like an answer to my previous question: what evidence would you expect to see that is absent if the Earth did orbit the Sun? 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 Jefferson For 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 Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3132 days) Posts: 1548 Joined:
|
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Shalom Smooth,
Well you are obviously a fucking retard. Not so smooth anymore, eh?
So how can you say my arguments are religious? Religious based. You see, the gecentrism your hate group is advocating comes from a religious PoV. The site you cited clearly supports it. Ergo, you're shitty excuse for an argument has a religous BASE.
And just by saying that links I provide are not peer-reviewd doesn't make it so. The suns-path-diagram work has not been peer-reviewed. Find the peer-review and cite it. You can't, I tried, it doesn't exist beyond that one website you linked. It's pseudo-science garbage.
Was Michelson-Morley experiment not peer reviewed, how about Michelson-Gale? The Sagnac experiment? Yes, they were. You're shitty sun-path-diagram psuedo-science bullshit, was not. That was the only thing I was refering to you schmuck. - 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Shalom Smooth,
Actually it is, in the Dynamic theory of gravity tesla proposed. The work that you yourself said was never published? Thus not peer-reviewed, thus pseudo-science bullshit once again.
Or, or, ummm... maybe it's the effect of the aether, producing gravity, that is bending light? Did you ever think that is possible? Think it is possible, sure. I once thought it was possible for a cow to jump over the moon, until I saw the evidence against that possibility. There is no aether producing gravity, and if your coming to that conclusion because of Teslas work, then you're believing non-reviewed pseudo-science bullshit. In fact, you can't even reference the actual work done by Tesla. None of it was published. None of it was reviewed by other physicist. None of it has been subjected to proper analysis by others in the field. Which makes it pseudo-science garbage, once again.
Please go away, and educate yourself.
Well, since you said please... Anyways, from your link:
quote: Einsteins prediction had a different deflection value. AND, the measured deflection, accordind to the link YOU cited, fit the Einstein value, while much less compatible with the Newtonian bending. However, the fact remains that spacetime is curved. Stick around, well give you the proper education, Smooth. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5144 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:No, it just means you got rid of the epycicles. quote:More than 30 km/s measured value in the Michelson-Morley type experiment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined:
|
No, it just means you got rid of the epycicles. What's the difference between the planetary orbits predicted by heliocentric elliptical orbits and what's observed? 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 Jefferson For 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 Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5144 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Because of the wrong assumption. They assumed teh moving Earth. quote:No it's not, and I explained why. Plus, relativity is also an aether theory. But a Lorentz-invariant one. quote:No I didn't. I responded, but you didn't respond back.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5144 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:But I am not a part of that group nor do I agree with them in all cases, so it has nothing to do with me. Even if it is religiously based, does that mean that the scientific arguments are a priori wrong? quote:So this one obviously hasn't but others have been. Besides, a peer-review doesn't mean anything. If you can't debate without resorting to this argument from authority type fallacy, than you already lost. quote:Why don't you go and fuck yourself with that crap. You said my links were not PR. But now you are switching to the postition that only some were not PR. quote:No, you fucking idiot. It was never published becasue Tesla died. PR is not what counts for what is righ and what's wrong. quote:Well this means you are an idiot if you thought that. quote:No, your head is what is full of bullshit. You piece of shit. Since when is PR arbiter of ultimate truth anyway? quote:The point remains that it wasn't his prediction in the first place. And the reason he got different results is becasue he waqs wrong. Newtonian results are much better. http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/ECLIPSE/Eclipse.html This paper explains how Newtonian physics is more consistent than Einsteins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5144 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Nothing. But that doesn't make it true. Both models fit the observations. But you need more than that to pick one that will be called the best explanation.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024