|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Relativity is wrong... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5145 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Read my post 206. EvC Forum: Message Peek
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5145 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:The same kind that makes the Moon spiral around the Earth. quote:Already explained THREE times. quote:Explained about FOUR times. quote:Explained TWICE. quote:None exist. quote:Than look harder. quote:The stars we see are all there are. What other stars are you talking about? Everything is small so it can fit into the small universe perfectly. Other galaxies are not gigantic groupings of gigantic stars. quote:Explained above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:None exist. Hubble Deep Field - Wikipedia This very small section of the sky:
Contains all of these galaxies: Wikimedia Error ABE: I just changed that from a thumbnail because its too huge to link too like that. which all contain solar systems. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: How does the rotating shell exert a force? How can we detect and measure this force? I have. Nope. I still don't get it. Can you explain specifically how a rotating shell exerts a force on the Earth such that it is always at the very centre of the universe regardless of any gravitational forces? Even a slight imbalance in the various forces on the Earth would result in the Earth moving from a fixed point. Moving from centre of the universe. No? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Straggler writes: Oh. So you accept Newtonian gravity. You accept the concept of inertial mass. But you don't consider the relative masses of different bodies in the "solar" system particularly important with regard to what orbits what. I am beginning to suspect that you may not have thought this through very well.
Smooth writes: Or maybe I did, but you forgot that teh rotating shell of the universe exerts forces that are stronger than gravity. So the motions of the planets and the Sun have more to do with this rotation, than Earth's gravity.
Straggler writes: How does the rotating shell exert a force? How can we detect and measure this force?
Smooth writes: Read my post 206. From post 206:
Smooth writes: This is called Mach's Principle...[it]..shows that a rotating shell of matter will produce forces inside that mimic coriolis and centrifugal forces which can explain why the pendullum swings in such a fashion. Here's what the Mach's principle actually says:
quote: Mach's principle does NOT say that a rotating shell will "produce a force inside that mimic coriolis and centrifugal forces," it says, in a very vague way, that there is some (unknown) physical law which would make it so you feel a centrifugal force. So you still have not defined this force. You mentioned the Mach's principle which eludes to some (unknown) law that would make one feel a centrifugal force. Mach's principle does not answer Stragglers question of the actual force that is doing 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5145 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:The picture just shows faint stars, how do you know they are a bunch of solar systems?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5145 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:How? It's just balanced that way. quote:No it wouldn't because those forces are not strong enough to move the Earth. How long do you have to push a 1000 ton object with your left hand to move it? Obviously this will never do. You will never push it because you are not exerting enough force to move it even one bit. The same goes for the Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5145 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Actually it does, since this force has been shown to exist with the Lense-Thirring effect. Which does model the geocentric universe with a giant shell and the forces arising in it's interior. I actually explained this to you few pages ago. And I mentioned both teh Mach's Principle that Einstein coopted, and the Lense-Thirring effect. But you obviously didn't bother to read it and concluded that the best way to continue the discussion is by attacking my arguments with accusations of my religious motives. Therefore this will be my last post directed to you. You have lost the privilege to address me. Nor will I respond to you anymore. Good bye...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3132 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
SO writes: But in your view, the universe does not look like that, thus has no center. I am not referring to the entire dimension of spacetime of the Universe. I am referring to just the scope of just the Solar System. So in the frame of reference of the Solar System it does have a center of mass/gravity very near to the center of the Sun.
SO writes: I am correct in saying that the center of solar system is relative if relativity is true. It depends on how you are defining the word relative and in what context. BTW, just because the Sun moves around this center of mass/gravity does not make it 'relative' ('relative to what?) or mean that there is no center of mass/gravity for the Solar System.
SO writes: You are the one who said the Sun is the center, which is obviously false. It is not false, by all intensive purposes this is true. There is no other celestial body planet or otherwise that is closer to this center of gravity for the Solar System than the Sun. Additionally, the vast majority of the time the center of gravity for the Solar Sytem lies within the radius of the Sun. It is just a simplification to say the Sun is the center of the Solar System. Trying to explain barycenters and centers of mass and centers of gravity to elementary and middle school students would be overkill and they would not be able to comprehend much of the math behind it until later in there schooling. Therefore, this more in-depth focus of astrophysics is taught in high school and college after they learn fundamentals of algebra, geometry and trigonometry.
SO writes: Yes it can shift more or less, but the point is, the Sun itself is not the center. The maximum distance the center ever comes from the Sun is 500,000 km, but yes, it can be closer. You just contradicted yourself again. I thought you said the Earth was the center of the Solar System/Universe?
So how ever you look at it, you were wrong in saying that the Sun is teh center of solar system. So you agree that the Earth is not the center of the solar system then huh? BTW it was me who originally brought up the point that the Sun revolves around its barycenter along with the planets. The barycenter for the Earth and the Sun is very close to the center of mass of the Sun (approx 449 km from the center of mass of the Sun). Due to Jupiters much greater mass, the barycenter between the planet Jupiter and the Sun is just 46,000 km outside the surface (or more accurately the photosphere) of the Sun (which is 696,000 km in radius). This barycenter between the Sun and Jupiter is still within the atmosphere (corona) of the Sun and therefore it would still be correct to say that Jupiter orbits the Sun (though it does cause the Sun to wabble around this center of gravity just outside its photosphere). Like I said earlier the 500,000 km above the surface of the Sun, center of mass/gravity of the Solar System is only if all the planets lined up on one side of the Solar System. This is an astronomical impossibility though. The probability of this happening is once every 8.6 x 1046 (86 billion-trillion-trillion-trillion) years. Planetary Alignments: Fact or Fiction?.
SO writes: No I didn't, I was only explaining how things would work if relativity was true. So you are trying to prove that the Universe revolves around the Earth by pointing out that the Sun wobbles around a center of gravity within its own atmosphere? You are the King of Obfuscation!!
SO writes: Myself writes: Including the Sun. The Sun also revolves around that center of mass. So saying that Sun is the center is wrong. By all intensive purposes it is if you are just looking at the frame of reference of the Solar System by itself. Saying the sun is the center of the solar system is a rough generalization of the model of the solar system since no other celestial body is closer to this center of mass/gravity than the Sun and everything in the solar system revolves around this center of mass. I just said that. Again I am the one that first brought the point up about the Sun wobbling around its barycenter. Now you are just being deliberately confrontational and stupidly obstinant.
SO writes: No, again, I do not accept this view. I'm just explainig it to you. I'm explainig how it would work if relativity was true. You can't even explain your own view and model of the Universe/Solar System. How do you expect to explain mine? Can you predict the next solar eclipse with your discombobulated model of the solar system? Please I would love to see the mathematical calculations and orbital mechanics for this prediction.
SO writes: Myself writes: Show me a professional scientist who works in the field of astronomy for the last 100 years that does not agree that the Earth rotates and revolves around the Sun. Every single one. They are either relativists. WTF?!? What is a 'relativist'? Scientists don't use this term. It is like saying a scientist is a gravitist or a electromagnetismist or an evolutionist.
SO writes: that believe that boh the Earth and the Sun orbit the center of mass of our solar system, So now you are going to battle semantics. As I explained previously ad nauseum the Earth and the rest of the planets do revolve around the Sun, the center of gravity for the Solar System lies for the vast majority of the time WITHIN the radius of the Sun. or are geocentrists but are not outspoken[/qs] They are so not outspoken that nobody has ever heard of them. If they presented a valid, rational case for egocentricity you would actually see it in a scientific setting i.e. a peer-review journal, conferences, scientific discoveries, etc. What do we hear in the scientific community about egocentricity. Nada.
SO writes: Becasue that means that earth is revolving around the common center of mass in the solar system together with the Sun. And Sun not being the center, but very close to it. Which is what I actually originally brought up here: Message 178 Myself writes: 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. BTW, what is your point here? How is this helping your argument about geocentrism?
SO writes: myself writes: If we use the frame of reference of just the solar system than we can indeed state that the planets are orbiting the Sun (or near it enough to generalize it as such). Than just say that it's near the Sun, and not the Sun itself that everything in our solar system is orbiting. Actually the planets are orbiting the Sun in their orbit around the Solar System's center of gravity whether it is within the photosphere of the Sun or just outside of it in its corona. Either way saying that "the planets orbit the Sun" is a correct statement because in order to orbit the Solar Systems center of gravity they have to orbit the Sun as well. Besides this is all a red herring in order to draw attention away from your previously stated geocentric model of the universe.
SO writes: Everything we have today was built on those foundations. Obviously not everything since you believe the Earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it. Science does not support this model.
SO writes: By saying that we should listen to the majority of scientists you assume they are always right. It's a logical necessity. If you are not assuming that, than there is no logical necessity to listen to them blindly Now you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. I said we should consider that majority of scientists and what they say. I did not say that we should uncategorically and blindly assume they are right no matter what.
SO writes: What success? Oh, I don't know. Accurate maritime navigation, astronomical predictions and so forth.
SO writes: The only reason it was advanced over the geocentric one is because it explained the phases of Venus. Copernicus' heliocentric model along with Keppler's revision of orbital mechanics made predictions which in the long run geocentrism could not never achieve.
SO writes: Which geocentric model also describes No it doesn't.
SO writes: Standard candle is what redshift is calibrated on. It's the luminosity of an object. True. I stand corrected. However there are various ways of determining standard candle.
SO writes: There are lot's of explanations for redshift. One of them is that light from stars is coliding with H2 and thus slowing down. H2 would not cause the light to "slow down" it would absorb than retransmit this light. If this were true we would tale-tale H2 absorption lines in the spectrometry signature of the redshifted light and determine this to be the cause. Obviously this is not what is occurring otherwise the astrophysicists would have figured this out long ago. BTW individual photons due not slow down in non-vacuumous material, they always travel at c, the speed of light. It is actually the absorption and retransmission of photons which is causing the 'light to slow down'. Also redshifting is not caused by the 'slowing down of light' but rather the shifting in frequency of light towards the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum. Again if gas or any other material were causing redshifting we would see its absorption lines.
You keep quoting from the same 1 or 2 'scientists' as if they are the only credible sources and who oppose the work of hundreds of thousands of professional astronomers and astrophysicists world wide. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Can you explain specifically how a rotating shell exerts a force on the Earth such that it is always at the very centre of the universe regardless of any gravitational forces? How? It's just balanced that way. That is not very informative. "Balance" means that all forces are ultimately equal but opposite thus cancelling each other out. How does a rotating shell give rise to that result? There is no known mechanism by which this can occur. Is it "magic"?
Straggler writes: Even a slight imbalance in the various forces on the Earth would result in the Earth moving from a fixed point. Moving from centre of the universe. No? No it wouldn't because those forces are not strong enough to move the Earth. F=ma Newtons second law. Any overall resultant force no matter how small will result in a change of motion. Why do the changing forces of gravity exerted on the Earth not result in changes in motion of this initially static Earth? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Therefore this will be my last post directed to you.
You have lost the privilege to address me. Can I still stand outside your house holding a radio over my head?
Nor will I respond to you anymore. Can we still be myspace friends, though? - 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3132 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
So Smooth Operator, lets talk about your geocentric model of the Solar System. Please answer the following using your geocentric model of the Solar System:
How big exactly is the Earth and how much does it weigh? How did you calculate this measurement? How fast is Earth moving through space? Can solar flares and sunspots affect Earth and if so how? Why do we always see the same side of the Moon from Earth? What causes tides? What is the Moon made of? (Please don't say cheese) Why is the Moon covered with craters? Why is the distance between Earth and Moon increasing? Why does the Moon have phases? What causes a solstice? An equinox? What is the chance of Earth being hit by a comet or asteroid? How big is the Sun and all the planets? When is the next solar eclipse and how did you determine this? When is the next occultation of Jupiter and Saturn? Why does the Sun not produce tides as big as those caused by the Moon on Earth? How many planets are there in the Solar System? What is the order of planets that orbit the Earth/Sun? Which planets orbit the Earth? Which ones orbit the Sun? What is causing the Sun to orbit the Earth? The moon to orbit the Earth? Why doesn't the Sun's gravity pull the Moon to it vice the Earth? How far away is Mercury from the Sun/Earth? How far away is Venus from the Sun/Earth? How far away is Mars from the Sun/Earth? How far away is Jupiter from the Sun/Earth? How far away is Uranus from the Sun/Earth? How far away is Neptune from the Sun/Earth? How far away is Pluto from the Sun/Earth? Do all planets orbit the Sun in the same direction? Which planet is the largest and how big? Which one is the densest? Which one is the least dense? Why does Uranus orbit on its side? How and when did the solar system form? How big is the solar system? Do comets go around the Earth or the Sun? What causes meteors? What is the nearest star? What are stars made of? How big can stars grow? What happens to a star when it runs out of fuel? Explain the orbital mechanics behind the orbit of the Sun around the Earth. Is the Milky Way galaxy real? How many stars are in the Milky Way if it real? How big is it? How far away is the closest galaxy? How big is the universe? How many galaxies are there in the universe? What is the Sun's place in the Milky Way? What is the age of the universe? Is space curved or is it flat? What is spacetime? What are the galaxies we see in the sky? BTW, I encourage everyone to ask SO at least 5 questions about SO's geocentric model of the solar system. If he this confident in it, he should be able to answer them with ease. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5145 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Fine, but you do that that is a totally arbitrary and relative center? quote:Yes there is, but the Sun is not it. The mass/gravity is. So it's tatally arbitrary on what you pick. You could have also picked Pluto. Why not? Because it's not the center of mass/gravity? So what? quote:But if we are going to be really nitpicky, it's false, right? quote:Well I don't believe that. I'm just explaining to you what would be the case if relativity was true. quote:No I do not. quote:Yes, we discussed this already. It's still not the center. The Sun is not the center. The center moves all the time like the planets do. quote:No, I'm not. I'm just explaining to you what would be the case if relativity was true. quote:But you said the Sun was the center. quote:This is an unsupported asertation. quote:They are the same for any model. quote:Someone who accepts relativity is a relativist. quote:Not necessarily. It is also outside of it. quote:Why all the authorities? Is that all you can think of? quote:I'm trying to explin to you that there are no absolute reference frames, so any movement is relative if relativity is true. But if it is true, the phrase "Sun revolves around the Earth" is as equally valid as "Earth revolves around the Sun". So you have no basis for saying thet the Earth must be rotating around the Sun, since you have in advance picked the Sun as the reference frame. But you could have picked Mars, so everything would be moving around Mars. quote:Actually it's not. I'm trying to explaint to you that you ahve no basis for picking the Sun as your main reference frame, and than claiming that it i true that all the planets orbit it. quote:Science can't accept anything since it's not alive. It is some people who do not accept it. It still remains the point that future scientific works have been built upon the previous ones. Like Copernicus' heliocentric model was built from Ibn Al-Shatir's geocentric model. quote:But you say that they do not agree with geocentrism, and that that is why we should not accept it either. quote:Geocentric model can do the same. quote:I'm sorry but the Tychonic model explains all the observations. quote:How do you know that? quote:Which is meaningless to the phenomena of redshift itself and it's interpretation. quote:Absorbtion is causing the light to slow down. quote:This is an assumption. quote:Yes, I know, I said that. quote:But this effect can be due to H2 slowdown. Not becasue the object is moving away. quote:There are more of them, but I recently found out about these two so I decided to se what they have to offer. So I'll be quoting them for a while.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
Other galaxies are not gigantic groupings of gigantic stars. O RLY? What are they? Bugs spattered on the Windshield We Call The Firmament? Why do we have photographs showing stars in other galaxies? What was Henrietta Leavitt looking at back in the 1920's - the things in other galaxies that looked like stars, had spectra like stars, and changed brightness just like variable stars?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey xongsmith
In other words, we can come up with a horrible transform. This could be done. But I'm not gonna do it. Now add in the forces that lift the sun above this plane, without lifting the oblate eccentricity of the surface of the earth. Tide - Wikipedia
quote: Or about 3 ft. The maximum tides known on earth, taking in depth, synchronous basin configurations, etc. is on the order of 55 feet:
quote: The earth shape however shows much greater difference from pole to equator. Earth - Wikipedia
quote: That's about 141,100 feet, or ~2,660 times the largest known tidal difference, and there is another difference: Tidal bulges are along a line pointing to the approximate location of the sun or moon (albeit with a time delay). The oblate spheroid bulge is the same all around the equator, and never varies up or down from that location. It's the opposite shape of a tidal bulge. Now put a new moon together with a midnight sun while standing near the north pole - the moon and the sun stay suspended above the horizon plane, the same plane defined by the oblate spheroid's extended waist, and yet ... ... the (combinations of transformed) force/s that holds them so uniquely suspended above the earth for several days, weeks, months, on end, has, curiously, no visible effect on the surface of the water, the equator is still 43 km wider all around a 360° circle than the distance along the line from pole to pole.
Let's do the Time Warp again.... Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024