|
Author
|
Topic: Relativity is wrong...
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: the evidence is unsupported
Shalom Smooth,
Even if it is religiously based, does that mean that the scientific arguments are a priori wrong? No, the argument is wrong on it's own. What it means is it has a religious bases, which you said it didn't. Well, it does, so you were wrong.
So this one obviously hasn't but others have been. The only one I was refering to was the sun-path-diagram. I never said anything about the Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale or the Sagnac experiment. You need to follow what is being debated properly and stop acting like such a little bitch when you are called on your shit.
Besides, a peer-review doesn't mean anything. It means that other people in the field reviewed the work and came to the same conclusions validating the hypothesis. It's part of the scientific method. If not then anyone can present anything and call it science. It's not that easy, there is a method to having work accepted as valid, anything that doesn't follow this method is pseudo-science bullshit.
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. No. I said the sun-path-diagram that you cited was not peer-reviewed. It (sun-path-diagram), not the others, was pseudo-science bullshit. You need to follow what is being debated properly and stop acting like such a little bitch when you are called on your shit.
No, you fucking idiot. It was never published becasue Tesla died. Yes, he died, it wasn't published and never got peer-reviewed. What the fuck is so hard to follow? You need to follow what is being debated properly and stop acting like such a little bitch when you are called on your shit.
Well this means you are an idiot if you thought that. We think of all kinds of stupid shit when we are kids. We drop these idiotic ideas when we reach a level of adulthood when we can rationalize. You seem to not have gotten there yet.
No, your head is what is full of bullshit.  who are you Napoleon Dynamite?
And the reason he got different results is becasue he was wrong. Schmuck, the very site you linked said the Einstein value was better. You can read, right? I fucking highlighted it!
This paper explains how Newtonian physics is more consistent than Einstein Where does it say that in that paper. Bare links don't help the debate. - Oni
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
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
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
Re: high speed sun
Th first link exlains absolutly nothing. It doesn't have any kind of reference to any work done, no math, nothing. The second link is religious, proving once again that your argument has a religous basis for it. It is not science, it is psuedo-science garbage. The author is fucking anonymous. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: Still Unbelievable!
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:
Ernst Mach: You are standing in a field looking at the stars. Your arms are resting freely at your side, and you see that the distant stars are not moving. Now start spinning. The stars are whirling around you and your arms are pulled away from your body. Why should your arms be pulled away when the stars are whirling? Why should they be dangling freely when the stars don't move? Mach's principle says that this is not a coincidencethat there is a physical law that relates the motion of the distant stars to the local inertial frame. If you see all the stars were whirling around you, Mach suggests that there is some physical law which would makes it so you would feel a centrifugal force. The principle is often stated in vague ways, like "mass out there influences inertia here".
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
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: Still Unbelievable!
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
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
Message 272 of 633 (518367)
08-05-2009 2:46 PM
|
|
|
Ok, now you guys are just making shit up. At least Smooth provided links.  - Oni
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: Read and Weep
Read and weep sucker!! Read and weep. I bow to your better knowledge, sir. Oh wait, I found a flaw...step 3.
quote:
Create a head by covering a small ball of tape in a strip, leaving a sticky tab.
Who created the creator that is being instructed to create the head? Your turtle requires a creator as well. Or is it turtles all the way down?  - Oni
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 274 by Straggler, posted 08-05-2009 2:49 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: IT REALLY IS AS SIMPLE AS THIS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course you can perfectly describe the motion of the entire Universe - Moon, Sun, Solar System, Milky Way, and the rest - as revolving around a static Earth. The motions are hideous, the mathematics unspeakable and we have no explanative framework for why ANY of this occurs. But, it can be done. This is what SO insists we should do. However, when Aldrin and Armstrong stood on the Moon, they observed exactly the same situation. They could have insisted that the Moon is static, and the rest of the Universe is revolving around it. We would again have a hideous set of unexplained motions and mathematics. The problem is, this motion is entirely contradicted by the original motion as dictated by a static Earth. So which is correct? Why do we choose the Earth over the Moon? Now, if we apply the modern understanding of the Universe, we obtain an infinitely simpler set of motions, predictive mathematics, and an explanative framework of extraordinary capability comprised of modern relativity and cosmology. So, which do I choose? Earth centric, Moon centric, or the modern understanding? Or, to paraphrase, how f'in stupid do you think I am???
This should have been message 2 in this thread. - Oni
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 445 by cavediver, posted 09-10-2009 9:59 AM | | cavediver has replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
|
|
Message 461 of 633 (524329)
09-15-2009 10:25 PM
|
Reply to: Message 457 by Son Goku
09-15-2009 3:03 PM
|
|
Re: Singularities and General Relativity
In other words black holes are completely consistent with General Relativity and anybody who says otherwise can mathematically be shown to be talking a load of arse. But Son Goku, didn't you look at the work of Stephen Crothers? He says the original paper, and I quote, "doesn't do it." I personally don't see why you're being so stubborn on this; what more proof do you need? He goes on to say that "black holes, big bang and the expansion of the universe is not consistent with GR"... he said so! You are all being quite hard headed about this... Oh the shame you must all feel. - Oni
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 457 by Son Goku, posted 09-15-2009 3:03 PM | | Son Goku has not replied |
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: Singularities and General Relativity
That is not what Stephen Crothers says. That's what I keep say'n but they won't listen. I don't get it either, Smooth.
He has written about it extensively. On sheets of paper a mile long sometimes, I know, what gives with these guys? How many more times does Crothers have to put ink to paper before people realize that he's right?
And he says that it's wrong. A(f'n)men!
There are no black holes, and they are in contradiction with GR. I feel I have learned more from this single post than in all my years of studying. Thanks, Smooth, and of course, thanks to Crothers.
It also means that there is no mass or energy in that certain universe. - This is a problem because it violates First Law of thermodynamics. The First Law, that was observed and concluded to be a law by beings made of mass and energy...hmmm?
Matter and energy can't be created. Excuse me, Smooth, but I will beg to differ here. Everyone knows that Invisible Pink Unicorns' sole purpose is to create mass and energy. Straggler said so, and he has definitely written extensively on this. - Oni
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: Astronomical distances and Black Holes
Still giving links to religious sites, huh? Still claiming your argument is not religiously driven? Anyway... for the sake of anyone reading, Smooth's link creation-wiki claims:
quote:
Yet a California observatory measured the optical Martian parallax during the 2003 opposition and arrived at an AU centered on 151.6 million kilometers, one percent larger that the radar value.
However, if you go to the link for the California observatory, no such thing is claimed. I read the whole thing, perhaps you can quote it? Till then, his link lied. But what can we expect from creation-wiki. Also:
quote:
The mean value from all the calculations was 8.538" of arc.
...is another lie. If you go to the creation-wiki page and go to the link titled on line calculator you'll see the actual numbers. From the link:
quote:
For comparison, the values of the mean distance and parallax of the sun, adopted by the International Astronomical Union, are 149597870 km and 8.794 respectively.
So, as anyone can see, Smooth's support link to his (bogus) argument is simply lying to try to make a point. Smooth, check your references next time before it makes you look like you're passing along false information. - Oni
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Re: Astronomical distances and Black Holes
Too late. (About 556 posts too late, to be exact.) - good point. - Oni
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
This is simply a general post, since I'm not talking to Oni, that mentally retarded cretin, and I refuse to reply to him. I'm in no mood to get suspended, since I'm having a pretty good debate over in the Coffee House. But if I was, I'd tell you to go fuck yourself you moronic, imbecile. The only mentally retard fuck around here is you with your geocentric stupidity that you're trying to pedal. You're that fucking retarded that you contradict yourself even when you're contradicting yourself. You CHANGED the link you fuckstick. That's NOT the original one you provided for everyone to look at, you cited creation-wiki.. YOUR LINK WAS BOGUS. Next time quote the proper context of what you're saying so we/others can follow what you mean. Bare links don't help. Now, that's what I would have said had I been in the mood to comment back, but I'm not, so have a pleasent day, Smooth.
So there, he can go and pray to Darwin now. Maybe he will let him evolve a bigger brain. That actually made me laugh... - Oni [abe] I also want to quote from the original link, which you didn't provide in this new link of only the picture. From your link:
quote:
However, as the number of usable observations increases, I expect that the error will diminish and the resulting solar parallax will tend to the true value of 8.794. Therefore, it's important to submit your own observational data.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given. Edited by onifre, : No reason given. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Another general post here, simply because you just can't keep a good retard down! He will come back and hit you with his stupidity over and over again! Thanks again. And I will come back to point out why you are mistaken and being deceitful, in spite of your cunty attitude.
If my first link was "bougs" somehow, that who did Oni-moron find it int he first place? It was bogus because it was presenting false numbers. Creation-wiki claimed:
quote:
Yet a California observatory measured the optical Martian parallax during the 2003 opposition and arrived at an AU centered on 151.6 million kilometers, one percent larger that the radar value.
Yet the link for the California Observatory, which is who creation-wiki is using as a source, doesn't show any of that. In fact, the Cali Obseratory link gives results for 2004, not 2003. The creation-wiki page pulled those numbers out of their ass.
And another thing, the reason I only provided the picture only link, is because evrybod has already seen the original article Perhaps, but I suspect you did it because right under the picture it explains clearly that " the error will diminish and the resulting solar parallax will tend to the true value of 8.794." As the Observatory explains:
quote:
However, as the number of usable observations increases, I expect that the error will diminish and the resulting solar parallax will tend to the true value of 8.794. Therefore, it's important to submit your own observational data.
So, if we go back to your Message 551, when you say:
Smooth writes: As you can see here, the radio signals that are sent to other planets do not match with calculations from other methods. Every method you use, you get a different number, for the distance to other planets. Not only that, but with time, over the interval of one yesr, the distance changes incrementally. Therefore it's wrong.
You are wrong. You speak nonsense, and your links do not support your position because the numbers given by creation-wiki are bogus, fake, made-up. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
onifre
Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: 02-20-2008
|
Well I expect that there will be less imbeciles on this forum as time goes by Just as soon as you leave the forum.
And they 2003/2004 mistake, it's not a mistake, it clearly says 2003 Martian parralax in the PDF that is linked from creationwiki. NO IT DOESN"T. Wrong link, again. This is concerning the Transit of Venus. Here's the right link: online calculator. From the link:
quote:
The observations of the last transit of Venus, made at different points of the earth, may be used to determine the sun’s mean equatorial parallax, a measure for its distance from the earth. The calculator below enables you to compute the mean equatorial solar parallax online from your own and others’ observations of the 2004 transit of Venus, employing either Halley’s or Delisle’s method.
Results of the 2004 transit From the contact timings submitted so far, which are listed in the calculator, a preliminary solar parallax may be computed by pairing complete observations of second and third contact. If only timings from widely separated locations are paired and combinations of neighbouring locations are accordingly disregarded, a total number of 42 matching observations is found. Subsequently, applying Halleyfs method to these combinations and averaging the results, a solar parallax of 8''.538 is found, corresponding to a sunfs distance of 154084980 km. This compares to the true value of the mean solar parallax, the difference being only 2.9%. Itfs striking that three-quarters of the paired observations yield a solar parallax being significantly smaller than the true value. This indicates that somehow the observations are biased by the black drop effect. However, as the number of usable observations increases, I expect that the error will diminish and the resulting solar parallax will tend to the true value of 8.794. Therefore, it's important to submit your own observational data.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
™ Version 4.2