EvC Forum: Relativity is wrong...

...

Author

Topic: Relativity is wrong...

Huntard

Member (Idle past 2325 days)

Posts: 2870

From: Limburg, The Netherlands

Joined: 09-02-2008

Huntard Posts Only

(1)

Message 151 of 633 (517679)
08-02-2009 4:43 AM

Reply to: Message 107 by Smooth Operator
08-01-2009 7:31 PM

Smooth Operator writes:

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

Except of course that it doesn't.

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

It is stationary to both the Earth and the Sun. You will see the Sun moving about the galaxy, and the Earth and all other planets orbiting the Sun.

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

To the Earth and the Sun. Have you found an explanation though for when your theory is true that why in ALL other instances objects are orbiting more massive objects?

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
	Message 107 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 7:31 PM		Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 162 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-02-2009 10:43 AM	Huntard has replied
	Message 194 by RAZD, posted 08-03-2009 7:08 PM	Huntard has not replied

Straggler

Member (Idle past 95 days)

Posts: 10333

From: London England

Joined: 09-30-2006

Straggler Posts Only

(1)

Message 152 of 633 (517682)
08-02-2009 5:11 AM

Reply to: Message 111 by Smooth Operator
08-01-2009 7:56 PM

Still Unbelievable!

So you accept Newtonian gravity. You also accept the concept of inertial mass. You also bewilderingly seem to accept that all of the other less massive bodies in the solar system orbit the Sun. Yet you still insist that the Sun orbits the Earth.....

1) Is the Earth or the Sun the most massive body in your version of the "solar" system?

2) Do you think the Earth is somehow static, fixed and unmoving at a point in space that lies at the centre of the Universe? If so how is it fixed in place?

3) Just out of interest do you think the surface of a sphere contains a point that can be described as the "centre" of that surface?

I continue to be baffled but intrigued by your thinking.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 111 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 7:56 PM		Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 163 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-02-2009 10:46 AM		Straggler has replied

Parasomnium

Member

Posts: 2224

Joined: 07-15-2003

Parasomnium Posts Only

(1)

Message 153 of 633 (517692)
08-02-2009 6:42 AM

Reply to: Message 111 by Smooth Operator
08-01-2009 7:56 PM

Again: eppur si muove...

Smooth Operator writes:

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

A quick glance behind that link revealed this snippet:

peswiki writes:

Tesla knew every "ponderable body" had an electrical content, and as such, proportionally interacted with the surrounding aether. The earth is like a charged sphere hurling through space (thus a current, hence magnetic field), around the sun powered by it's primary rays (and giant electric currents along "frozen magnetic lines of force", according to the works of Hannes Alfven mentioned in Lehrner's "The Big Bang Never Happened" ISBN 067974049X ).

The observed effects of solar flares through earth's magnetic field, and auroras at the poles, also manifest themselves through high voltage distribution overloads in certain areas due to these high energy/radiation "bursts". As the Earth rotates and revolves around the sun at great speed, a portion of the aether is polarized (is "rigidified" by "rapidly varying electrostatic forces" emitted by the Earth) and carried along by the electric field of the Earth which decreases with the inverse square of the distance from the Earth. Tesla measured these electrostatic emissions with a particular partially evacuated tube which he could orient as desired and watch the wave patterns change shape.

(green italics mine)

According to your source your precious Tesla seems to have known that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun. Again: eppur si muove.

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 111 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 7:56 PM		Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 165 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-02-2009 10:48 AM		Parasomnium has not replied

Parasomnium

Member

Posts: 2224

Joined: 07-15-2003

Parasomnium Posts Only

(1)

Message 154 of 633 (517697)
08-02-2009 7:30 AM

Reply to: Message 144 by Smooth Operator
08-02-2009 12:09 AM

Interpreting pictures

DevilsAdvocate writes:

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?

Smooth Operator, in response writes:

By the picture that shows them touching each other!

Something like this?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 144 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-02-2009 12:09 AM		Smooth Operator has not replied

Admin

Director

Posts: 13044

From: EvC Forum

Joined: 06-14-2002

Member Rating: 2.3

Admin Posts Only

Message 155 of 633 (517701)
08-02-2009 8:00 AM

Moderator On Duty

I'll be moderating this thread for a while.

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
	Message 166 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-02-2009 10:50 AM		Admin has seen this message but not replied

Modulous

Member

Posts: 7801

From: Manchester, UK

Joined: 05-01-2005

Modulous Posts Only

(1)

Message 156 of 633 (517703)
08-02-2009 8:32 AM

Reply to: Message 112 by Smooth Operator
08-01-2009 8:02 PM

Quick question

What a strange thread.

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.

If the sun is 91 million miles away it must be experiencing an enormous acceleration due to gravity from the earth to maintain orbit. It must be considerably higher than the approximately 9.8ms^-2 I'm experiencing right now. How does this work?

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 158 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2009 9:03 AM	Modulous has seen this message but not replied
	Message 167 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-02-2009 10:51 AM	Modulous has replied

DevilsAdvocate

Member (Idle past 3131 days)

Posts: 1548

Joined: 06-05-2008

DevilsAdvocate Posts Only

(1)

Message 157 of 633 (517704)
08-02-2009 8:33 AM

Reply to: Message 148 by Smooth Operator
08-02-2009 1:18 AM

SO writes:

understood it the first time. I never said it's bounced from the Sun directly. I only said it's done by radar. It can be bounced of other planets. So it's a direct method.

No, that would make using radar to measure the distance to the Sun an INDIRECT method (because you are deducing it from figuring out the third side of the triangle which you would not be able to do if the planet venus was going around the Earth instead of the Sun) and no that is not the only method for measuring the distance to the Sun.

SO writes:

Yes in both ways. Because if relativity is true, there is no real center. You can pick any point in the universe to be a center.

No one is disputing this?!? When did I ever say the Sun was at the center of the universe? Go ahead, go find the non-existent quote.

SO writes:

Myself writes:

SO writes:

Heliocentrism is wrong. It hes been removed after the "null" result from MM experiment.

By who?

By Einstein and his relativity.

Again it depends what you are talking about when you use the ambiguous term heliocentrism? Are you talking about the Sun being the center of the solar system or the universe. If the former than yes heliocentrism is correct in reference to the solar system if the latter than you are correct, the Sun is not the center is not the center of the universe and no one, including myself is disputing this.

If you are going to throw out ambiguous terms like heliocentrism you need to define in what context you using it. One minute you are talking about the frame of reference of the universe then next you are talking about the solar system.

BTW, I thought you said Einstein and his theories of relativity were wrong? In one minute you are condemning Einstein as a know nothing quack and the next you are using his work to substantiate your claim? Which is it, was Einstein right or wrong about his theories of relativity?

SO writes:

Myself writes:

SO writes:

One thing we can totally agree on! No one is disputing this.

Einstein's theory of relativity removed any notion of fixed absolute reference frame.

Theonly problem is that he was wrong.

LOL, round and round we go where we stop no one knows. Do you just make this shit up as you go?

SO writes:

How can it be the center of solar system if you have no absolute reference frame?

then

SO writes:

Exactly, therefore, you can't say that Sun is absolutely in the center of the solar system. It is only relatively in the solar system. It depends on which reference frame you pick.

Evidently there is some type of scientific comprehension problem here.

What does the "Sun is absolutely in the center of the solar system" mean? I am not sure what the heck you are talking about here.

#2 Maybe this will provide some clarity: The Sun along with the Solar System are revolving around the Galaxy which itself is 'moving' (actually spacetime itself is stretching) along with the local group of galaxies away from other groups of galaxies. So in this respect you are right there is nothing absolute or fixed in reference to spacetime.

But I know you reject all this so it is a moot point.

SO writes:

I'm just trying to explain to you that if you believe in relativity, there is no center.

Agreed. There is no center to the universe, the Sun or otherwise. The Sun is the center of the solar system if you are only looking at that frame of reference.

SO writes:

Did you know anything about it more than it's name? Hardly.Oh, so you do not accept observational evidence?

Because you see two galaxies in a picture 'touching' and you assume they are equildistance away from the Earth. That is beyond ignorant.

Myself writes:

Modern science for one.

You figure it out.

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 148 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-02-2009 1:18 AM		Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 168 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-02-2009 11:00 AM		DevilsAdvocate has replied

Straggler

Member (Idle past 95 days)

Posts: 10333

From: London England

Joined: 09-30-2006

Straggler Posts Only

(1)

Message 158 of 633 (517708)
08-02-2009 9:03 AM

Reply to: Message 156 by Modulous
08-02-2009 8:32 AM

Target Practise

What a strange thread.

Yep. I think Catholic Scientist's description of Smoothie as debating "Target Practise" is the best reason I have seen for it's ongoing existence.

My own take is that by asking the right questions we should be able to make SO contradict himself so blatantly that even he will have to either see the flaws in his own argument or have his head explode in a cloud of cognitive dissonance.

But maybe I am just a sadistic bastard like that..........

This message is a reply to:
	Message 156 by Modulous, posted 08-02-2009 8:32 AM		Modulous has seen this message but not replied

DevilsAdvocate

Member (Idle past 3131 days)

Posts: 1548

Joined: 06-05-2008

DevilsAdvocate Posts Only

(1)

Message 159 of 633 (517710)
08-02-2009 9:17 AM

Also what about the midnight sun phenomena observed from very high lattitudes that cavediver originally mentioned.

Wikipedia writes:

At the North Pole, the Sun is permanently above the horizon during the summer months and permanently below the horizon during the winter months. Sunrise is just before the vernal equinox (around March 19); the Sun then takes three months to reach its highest point of about 23 elevation at the summer solstice (around June 21), after which time it begins to sink, reaching sunset just after the autumnal equinox (around September 24). When the sun is visible in the polar sky, it appears to move in a clockwise circle above the horizon. This circle gradually rises from near the horizon just after the vernal equinox to its maximum elevation (in degrees) above the horizon at summer solstice and then sinks back toward the horizon before sinking below it at the autumnal equinox.

How does this occur if the Sun is orbiting the Earth? If this where the case then like cavediver stated it would have to be revolving around the extended axis of the Earth not the Earth itself and it would have to be moving up and down this axis along with the seasons.

Maybe this will help:

video:

also

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Reduce image width.

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 169 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-02-2009 11:02 AM		DevilsAdvocate has seen this message but not replied

onifre

Member (Idle past 2980 days)

Posts: 4854

From: Dark Side of the Moon

Joined: 02-20-2008

onifre Posts Only

(1)

Message 160 of 633 (517714)
08-02-2009 10:28 AM

Reply to: Message 141 by Smooth Operator
08-01-2009 11:18 PM

Re: the evidence is unsupported

Shalom Smooth,

If it is that why are you calling it religious in the first place?

Lets see if you can follow this: The scientific aspect of what you're saying is wrong on it's own, however, the argument for geocentricity has a reliigous bases. You confirmed that with the website you used to support your argument.

It doesn't for me, so I'm right.

Fair enough...

You are the one acting like a bitch because you said my links are not PR even before the SUN diagram I showed.

A few of the other things you cited weren't PR either. unless you can show that they were.

But the problem with this retarded approach is that it can fail miserably. There are tons of problems with it.

Oh, ok. Thanks for clearing that up. No need to further explain yourself.

Wrong! Even before that you said my articels are not PR.

That's because they weren't.

Just because it wasn't reviewd it's doesn't mean it's worng.

You're right. But the fact that it wasn't PR says that we can't confirm the hypothesis and it won't trump the already accepted and PR'd theories that have a consensus.

But you said that it wasn't reviewed and that makes it pseudo-scientific bullshit.

Anything that doesn't follow the scientific method but still claims to be good science is pseudo-science.

Wiki-definition:

quote:
Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

The sun-path-diagram, and the Tesla gravity theory, do not adhere to the appropriate scientific method, lack supporting evidence and lack scientific status...ergo, pseudo-science bullshit. And the sun-path-diagram also carries with it the religious bases that doesn't make it science at all.

But judging by his other work wouldn't you say that his theoretical knowledg would have to be at least as good, to make all the inventions he made?

The truth is I actually love Tesla. I love reading about his work, his inventions and the mysteries about his life. I think he was a genius in his own right, however, that doesn't mean I'm going to reject 100 years of supporting experimental and observational evidence to accept one particular theory just because I thought the guy was smart.

That's becasue they didn't review the original papers! But the point I was making is that light bending is not originaly Einstein's prediction. And that still stands.

Yes, but he predicted a different value for the deflection using GR. That makes it a different prediction! Which proved better than the Newtonian prediction.

Find it yourself. You don't deserve anything else.

Oh come on now buttercup, don't get all pissy with me. After everything I do for you you're gonna tell me I don't deserve it?

- 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

This message is a reply to:
	Message 141 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-01-2009 11:18 PM		Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 172 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-02-2009 11:28 AM		onifre has not replied

Smooth Operator

Member (Idle past 5143 days)

Posts: 630

Joined: 07-24-2009

Smooth Operator Posts Only

Message 161 of 633 (517716)
08-02-2009 10:40 AM

Reply to: Message 150 by cavediver
08-02-2009 3:52 AM

Re: SO's geocentricism is utterly refuted by the Midnight Sun

quote:
I see my simple question was ignored. Let me state in again:

That is because you have lost the right to address me. I made me get out of your topic. Now I want you to stay the hell away from mine. Go away...

This message is a reply to:
	Message 150 by cavediver, posted 08-02-2009 3:52 AM		cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 164 by cavediver, posted 08-02-2009 10:47 AM	Smooth Operator has not replied
	Message 186 by Admin, posted 08-03-2009 7:35 AM	Smooth Operator has not replied

Smooth Operator

Member (Idle past 5143 days)

Posts: 630

Joined: 07-24-2009

Smooth Operator Posts Only

Message 162 of 633 (517718)
08-02-2009 10:43 AM

Reply to: Message 151 by Huntard
08-02-2009 4:43 AM

quote:
Except of course that it doesn't.

It does in both Newtonian mechanics and in general relativity. So what kind of physics are you using?

quote:
It is stationary to both the Earth and the Sun. You will see the Sun moving about the galaxy, and the Earth and all other planets orbiting the Sun.

Can't be. If Earth and the Sun are rotating relative to each other, your ship can't be stationary relative to both.

quote:
I told you, that is not possible. In my theory more massive objects do not need to rotate around more massive ones.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 151 by Huntard, posted 08-02-2009 4:43 AM		Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 176 by Huntard, posted 08-02-2009 1:02 PM		Smooth Operator has replied

Smooth Operator

Member (Idle past 5143 days)

Posts: 630

Joined: 07-24-2009

Smooth Operator Posts Only

Message 163 of 633 (517719)
08-02-2009 10:46 AM

Reply to: Message 152 by Straggler
08-02-2009 5:11 AM

Re: Still Unbelievable!

quote:
So you accept Newtonian gravity. You also accept the concept of inertial mass. You also bewilderingly seem to accept that all of the other less massive bodies in the solar system orbit the Sun. Yet you still insist that the Sun orbits the Earth.....

Yes, what seems to be the problem?

quote:
1) Is the Earth or the Sun the most massive body in your version of the "solar" system?

Probably the Earth, but we can't say for sure.

quote:
2) Do you think the Earth is somehow static, fixed and unmoving at a point in space that lies at the centre of the Universe? If so how is it fixed in place?

Yes, it's static relative to the center of the universe. It just satands there, nothing is acting upon it, so it's not moving.

quote:
3) Just out of interest do you think the surface of a sphere contains a point that can be described as the "centre" of that surface?

No, the sphere has a center that is inside the sphere.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 152 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2009 5:11 AM		Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 171 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2009 11:15 AM		Smooth Operator has replied

cavediver

Member (Idle past 3673 days)

Posts: 4129

From: UK

Joined: 06-16-2005

cavediver Posts Only

(1)

Message 164 of 633 (517720)
08-02-2009 10:47 AM

Reply to: Message 161 by Smooth Operator
08-02-2009 10:40 AM

SO's geocentricism is utterly refuted by the Midnight Sun

Please explain how we can have a Midnight Sun in your geocentric universe?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 161 by Smooth Operator, posted 08-02-2009 10:40 AM		Smooth Operator has not replied

Smooth Operator

Member (Idle past 5143 days)

Posts: 630

Joined: 07-24-2009

Smooth Operator Posts Only

Message 165 of 633 (517721)
08-02-2009 10:48 AM

Reply to: Message 153 by Parasomnium
08-02-2009 6:42 AM

Re: Again: eppur si muove...

quote:
According to your source your precious Tesla seems to have known that the earth rotates and revolves around the sun. Again: eppur si muove.

Yes, I know. But this is very easily modifyable. We just need to make the Earth static and the aether moving. So everything still works as it's supposed to.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 153 by Parasomnium, posted 08-02-2009 6:42 AM		Parasomnium has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Rew

...

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

6 online now:	CosmicChimp, nwr, PaulK, Phat, Tangle, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2