Relativity is wrong...

quote:

---

I'll be moderating this thread for a while.

---

Please do, and please do remove the people who are NOT contributing to the discussion. Remove the people who are constantly acussing mea of having religious motives etc. When I have quoted zero biblical verses or anything similar.

quote:

---

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?

---

The same as if it was the Earth that was orbiting the Sun from the same distance.

quote:

---

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.

---

It's a direct method for other planets. It's still good enough to call it a direct method for measuring the distance to the Sun. And again, it has nothing to do what the other planets are orbiting.

quote:

---

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.

---

You are saying it's the center of the solar system. Which is also wrong if relativity is true. There is no center anywhere in that case. All centers are only relative.

quote:

---

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?

---

Neither. He is wrong, that's obvious, but you are the one who accepts his theories. But if you do, you cant accept that the Sun is the ABSOLUTE center of the solar system. It is only a RELATIVE center. Just as the Earth, or our moon, or Venus, or any other object in our system you choose to pick as the center.

quote:

---

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

---

No, I explained why he was wrong a long time ago.

quote:

---

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.

---

I know about that. So my question is, how did you come to the idea that the Sun is at the center of our solar system if you say that there is no absolute reference frame anywhere.

quote:

---

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.

---

Exactly! And so is the Earth, Venus, Mercury, Pluto, etc. IF, and only IF you choose so! It's relative!

quote:

---

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

---

So we should ignore observations in favor of assumptions?

quote:

---

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.

---

And that is exactly what it's doing.

and why exactly is it doing that?

Well why do all other planets orbit the Sun whilst the Earth does not? Then why do the other planets in the "solar" system not orbit the Earth rather than the Sun? Nothing is acting upon it? The gravity of the Sun? The gravity of the other planets in the planetary system? The gravity of the moon? No? Would none of these suggest that, even if we think the Earth is the most massive entity in the "solar" system, that the Earth is not actually completely static? But the surface of a sphere itself does not have a centre. Agreed?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

quote:

---

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.

---

Whose argument? Mine? No, obviously not. I'm not quoting the Bible. Someone elses? Yeah, could be, but that's not my problem. And to say that the argument for geocentrism is religious is proven by mi source is a non sequitur. Because I do not determine what my source believes in.

quote:

---

Fair enough...

---

Fine, so stop mentioning religion.

quote:

---

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

---

So what!? As I said, PR is not the arbiter of ultimate truth, it has it's own ups and downs, so why should we only accept what was PRed? That's ridiculous! There are good theories which don't pass PR, and there are bad ones that do. So your point is?

quote:

---

That's because they weren't.

---

Some were, some were not. I'm not blindly following the scientific community.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, it just means it didn't get it's chance to do so. But since I already said that PR is not perfect, why should we accept it as such?

quote:

---

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

---

Just because it wasn't PRed doesn't mean it doesn't follow the scientific method. PR and scientific method are two distinct notions. Was Copernicus' work PRed?

quote:

---

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.

---

Again, just becasue something didn't get PRed, doesn't mean it's pseudoscience. You are making a non-sequitur. Tell me which part of the scientific method are they not following?And furthermore, to say it lacks evidence is just plain wrong. Read his prepared lecture to the public in 1937.http://www.tesla.hu/tesla/articles/19370710.docHe predicted that when the radioactivity was discovered, that it's cause was the cosmic rays, primarily from the Sun. He said that if an object was shielded completely from those rays, the radioactivity would stop. And guess what? His prediction was confirmed becasue it has been observed that radioactive decay varies in accordance to Sun's distance from Earth. So this is a confirmed prediction, thus supporting evidence.http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.3283

quote:

---

And the sun-path-diagram also carries with it the religious bases that doesn't make it science at all.

---

What religious basis did you see in the diagram?

quote:

---

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.

---

But the past 100 years were wrong. Physics went the wrong way. Tesla was right.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, it's the same prediction with different numbers. And the prediction was wrong. The original papers reviewed in this papers actually show he was wrong.

quote:

---

Well why do all other planets orbit the Sun whilst the Earth does not?

---

Because it's in teh center of the universe, and the universe together with the Sun orbits the Earth.

quote:

---

Then why do the other planets in the "solar" system not orbit the Earth rather than the Sun?

---

Who says they don't? Maybe they do, we don't know. We have different models to describe both movements.

quote:

---

Nothing is acting upon it? The gravity of the Sun? The gravity of the other planets in the Universe? The gravity of the moon? No? Would none of these suggest that, even if we think the Earth is the most massive entity in the "solar" system, that the Earth is not actually static?

---

It is acting upon it, but not enough to move it.

quote:

---

But the surface of a sphere itself does not have a centre. Agreed?

---

Yes.

I'll say!You are seeking to overturn hundreds of years of scientific achievement, and claiming the exact opposite of what perhaps 99.999% of scientists have concluded from the evidence.What is your original inspiration for this view? It seems the bible is the only place where one could get such a view. And all the pseudoscience comes from trying to support that a priori belief.And I don't recall hearing of this view from any cultures where the bible is not found.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I am the center of the Universe. The Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth - it orbits me. When I walk, I am stationary - it is the Earth that moves. The rest of you move about upon its surface, but I am stationary.All of the scientific models that show the Earth orbiting the Sun with the other planets are completely wrong, because they assume that I am moving.SO's geocentric view is wrong also - he not only assumes a stationary Earth, he assumes that I am moving.I can see the evidence of this with my own eyes. I move the Earth as I walk until the correct place has moved to my location. The Sun, stars and planets all move around me, and their motions can be modeled according to my stationary point of reference.You should all stop believing what you read in "official" sources. They don't know the truth, because they're all working off of faulty assumptions.

No, it doesn't it curves spacetime, which is what light follows. Yes it can. Like I said, you will see the sun moving about the galaxy, and the earth and all other planets orbiting the sun. What makes you think that can't be observed? What is you evidence for it? That's a weird sentence. I think you mean that objects do not need to orbit more massive objects. Would you care to explain then this is what we see ALL the time, EVERY time?

---

I hunt for the truth

Another unexplained phenomena that geocentricity cannot explain.We observe Venus to stray at most 47° from the Sun. If as SO says the planets and Sun orbit around the Earth and the planets themselves move in circular epicycles as the orbited the Earth, than Venus would only show a very limited phasing. That is at most we should only see very slim crescents of the planet (and the majority of the time as "new Venus" in which Venus would not be visible due to its unilluminated surface) as shown below: instead we see full phasing of Venus from "new" to "full" as shown below: This full phasing of Venus is unexplainable with the geocentric model of the solar system.Any way you slice it, there is so much evidence debunking your hypothesis that for you to keep supporting it is beyond persistant ignorance but goes to flat out utter insanity.

---

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

I am not going to battle symantics here.Radar is not a direct method for measuring the Sun. You cannot bounce electromagnetic energy off of the Sun and measure the time it takes for it to return. Um, no that is not what the theories of general/special relativity state. They state that all laws of physics behave the same way in all frames of reference and everything is moving relative to each other. That is there is not static, fixed reference point to measure absolute velocity.The theories of relativity say nothing about things not having centers of gravity. The solar systems center of gravity is the Sun. Though the Sun itself ever slightly wobbles around centers of gravity/mass aka barycenters, which are inside the Sun itself. This is in fact one method we can determine extrasolar planets revolving around other Stars. Obvious to who? The 30 scientifically-illiterate people in the world that believe the Earth is the center of the Universe around which everything revolves? Nothing is absolute. You need to define what you mean by this statement. If another star approached the solar system and pulled the planets away by its gravitational tug than the Sun would no longer be the center of our Solar System. Relative to what? You are throwing around words you do not understand. Please explain what you are talking about. Does the universe revolve around the Earth or not? You have gone from the Earth is the center of the universe around which everything revolves to anything is the center. You are so ambiguous I can't figure out what the fuck you are talking about. Hence why I call you a troll just trying to stir up the pot here. Your explanations of scientific phenomena are worse than my 4 year old's attempts to rationalize why she should stay up past her bed time. Logic and rational thinking are lost on you. There is no 'absolute reference frame' in spacetime. I am only looking at the Solar System and the affects of gravity on the objects in the solar system. Therefore considering this frame of reference the planets revolve around the Sun. The effects of the planets on the Sun itself is negligible enough to generalize this as saying the planets orbit the Sun not vice versa as the Sun itself is rotating around a center of mass at the center of the Milky Way galaxy as our galaxy hurdles outward with the rest of the galaxies as spacetime itself accelerates its expansion. That is the current cosmological model as agree upon by the majority of science. Don't pretend to now agree with me. This is not the position you originally promoted. Are you abandoning your geocentric model of the Earth being the center of the uniiverse because it fell apart?So if you are saying that everything is 'relative' than do agree or disagree with Einstein, Lorentz, Planck, Hubble, Hoyle and others whose scientific contributions have resulted in our modern understanding of the nature of the universe. You are assuming these galaxies are touching. Using several different distance-measuring methods i.e. measuring red-shift or using a standard candle such as the cepheid variables in other nearby galaxies, super nova, etc astronomers determine these galaxies are not the same distance from 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

Pardon? Why do the other planets in our Solar system orbit the Sun and not the Earth? Oh. I thought observation said not? Which is more massive in your version of the "Solar" system, the Earth or the Sun? Surely all objects undergoing forces suffer a change in motion to some degree. Newtons second law etc. etc. No? What is special about the Earth?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In your model, the sun must be accelerating towards the earth much more than the earth needs to be accelerating towards the sun in heliocentrism. So you can't pull the 'its the same' trick, unfortunately - you've already stipulated they aren't the same.Do the maths, and you'll see it. If I'm wrong, show your working. Orbital physics is hardly rocket science.abe:Home experiment to confirm this for yourself: Spin a bucket on a rope of 1m around in a circle. Now spin a human on a rope of 1m in a circle 365 times faster. You will note that the two are not symmetrical situations.abe2: I note that you think the earth is probably the most massive object in the solar system. If so, you can repeat the above experiment with a bucket both times and you will still see that I'm right. There is no way the earth's paltry and measurable gravitational influence can keep an object in orbit at that range at the speed it has to be travelling at. Sorry.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.