Relativity is wrong...

quote:

---

So why is the Earth at the centre of the universe and nothing else?

---

Because 2 objects can't be at the same place in the same time.

quote:

---

Why does you silly model not result in all matter clumped together at the centre of the universe?

---

Why does your silly head keep asking me such stupid questions?

quote:

---

What? Your massive force overriding all other competing gravitational forces holds the Earth at the centre of the universe. Your massive and overriding force acts on "everything" but actually has no effect on all of the other matter in the universe at all because "2 objects can't be at the same place in the same time"?

---

You asked me WHY isn't anything else in the center of the universe except the Earth. That's like asking why isn't anything else in the center of the room except the table. If the table is already at the center of the room, you can't put a chair there, or another table. The same goes for the Earth. If it is in the center in teh first place, nothing else can be in the center in the same time.

quote:

---

You think asking why the force that your entire model relies upon, the force that acts on "everything", actually acts only on the Earth and nothing else is a silly question?

​

Why is the Sun and every other body in the universe not hurtling towards us if your "Lense-Thirring" force pushes all things to the centre of the universe? Which, in your la la land, is apparently where we are.

---

Simply because those forces arise only near the center, as the LT effect will tell you. Besides the shell has it's own gravitational pull, so it balances out it's force that is pushing everything towards the center.

quote:

---

Ok, what else then? Why does the most elegent, reasonable possibility (a planet) deserve such incredulous reaction? And why would you believe that our star would have planets while the others in our galaxy (estimated at 100 billion) should not?

---

I have given you a lot of examples of what else could it be. A planet is not a reasonable explanation simply because we never saw any outside the ones orbiting the Sun. And all those other galaxies are not simply bunch of stars with planets orbiting around them. Liek I explained in one of my posts, those are interpretations of what should be there...

quote:

---

No, you can calculate average distance. The more measurements you take over time, the more accurate the calculation is. Taking one measurement a week for a year gives me a more accurate calculation for average distance than if I took measurements once a month for a year. Taking the measurements for a year and a half makes the measurements even more accurate because I can show that the distances only vary within a year but are roughly the same from year to year. So it doesn't really matter that the distance fluctuates. And regardless of whether you know when the Earth is the closest and farthest from the Sun, the calculations anyone makes will be about what the currently measured distance from Sun to Earth is give or take a few percent. And velocity has no effect on the calculation of average distance. Your arguing against math here.

---

Okay than. Explain how do you get the average distance to the Sun. But without first knowing how far the Sun actually is. Do you not see that this is impossible?

quote:

---

No, what you have said is that some force causes Earth to not rotate. But how is this force acting solely on the Earth but not on anything else? To ask a question already asked of you, why is not everything hurtling towards the center of the Universe, the Earth if there is some mystic force pushing on the center. Saying no two objects cannot exist on the same point only dodges the question.

---

Wrong. I never said there is a force that acts on the Earth only. The shell exerts forces on all objects. That is, it's gravity does. But the forces of the LT effect arise only near the center.

quote:

---

If no two atoms can exist on the same point, doesn't that mean we couldn't crush cars? Are you suggesting that nothing can be crushed, mixed, or dissolved?

---

LOL? Crushing is displacement of atoms, not putting them in the same place at the same time. Where the hell did you get that idea?

quote:

---

At the very least, all objects in your Universe should be right next to each other because of this force that is not causing the Earth to rotate. So explain why the Sun is not right next to the Earth and the moon is many hundreds of thousands of miles away and not at my backdoor?

---

Because the shell has it's gravitational pull and in the same time pushes everything towards the ceneter. Therefore, everything stays in the same place, more or less, relative to the shell.

quote:

---

What do you mean, "no evidence?" The evidence is the math. Newton's laws work well, even in our solar neighborhood. The evidence are the observations people have made, observations such as stellar parallax.

---

I explained the parralax a billion times already. Can't you go and look for it? And math is no evidence in physics. To ahve evidence in physics, you need empirical not mathematical evidence.

quote:

---

All you have is your rotating, wobbling, and now circling up and down sphere but no observations or proof of this sphere. Tell me, how can anyone test for this sphere? Where can we look for this sphere? If your model is the right one, then there are ways to prove it correct, the simplest is to see this sphere. So show me a picture of this sphere or data that proves the existence of this sphere.

---

And again, for the billionth time. I already gave links the the anisotropic electromagnetic radiation form outer space, that is best explained by a rotating 3D sphere. Please go and look for it. I'm so tiered of the same questions over and over again.

quote:

---

You evaded the question. First, dark matter is not used to explain the spring and neap tides. Only the gravity of the sun and moon are used to explain the tides. Second, you can't say, "my model doesn't need dark matter so it's right" to prove your model correct. You need to show how your model explains spring and neap tides. So show me the math that your model explains the spring and neap tides without assuming gravitation is universal.

---

The Sun orbits in a spiraling fashion around the Earth. Not only that but it varies in distance. Thus all of this causes the tides and seasons.

quote:

---

And how do you know what Tesla said? Were you there? Show me what Tesla says. Show me this competing theory that Tesla produced.

---

Here you go:
http://www.scene.org/...esla.hu-mirror/articles/19370710.docThis is the short lectureTesla made in 1930s. It was about his Dynamic Theory of gravity, and the idea that all the enrgy we have comes from the aether.

quote:

---

SO, understand that all you are doing is making assertions. You say the currently accepted model is wrong, but you haven't shown how your model is better. You have not shown the math, the forces, or any scrap of observable evidence. This is my challenge to you: Show the math, a model of how the forces interact, and any observable evidence to back up your geocentric model.

---

Actually I have shown all of this. Maybe you are not very good with numbers or something, but the number "36" on this page, indicates that this topic is 36 pages long. If you are interested try and brows through it a bit. You will find the answers to all your questions.

quote:

---

And yet if a force pushing "everything" to the centre of the room existed we would expect the tables, chairs etc. etc. to be clumped together at the centre of the room rather than distributed around that room. No?

---

No we wouldn't. Simply because the shell is exerting the force of gravity that pulls everything towards it. Thus canceling out the forces that it produces and pushes everything from itself.

quote:

---

So then we have "magic". A phenomenon that is the the result of General Relativity to begin with (the Lense-Thirring effect) is cited as evidence against relativity itself.

---

Stop being an idiot. This is a Machian effect, which Einsten claimed supports his theory. I said that earlier. Stop pretending you didn't read it.

quote:

---

You then cite this force acting on "everything" as responsible for holding the Earth in the location that you decide it must occupy at the centre of the universe. But for some reason it does not also push the Sun or any other planets towards this centre.

---

Becasue, you mentally challenged dwarf, the shell has it's own gravity, which pulls everything towards itself. How many tiems to I have to repeat this same statement!?

quote:

---

Are you advocating magic? Or are you going to show how all competing and ever changing forces are continuously balanced to result in your ludicrous model where the earth but nothing else is at the centre of the universe?

---

Since when is gravity magic? Since when is only one object in the one place at one time magic? It's an observable fact.

quote:

---

SO - If you see no other flaw in your argument will you at least concede that your position amounts to deciding what is true and then making the "facts" and "evidence" fit around that rather than the other way round?

---

No. I have cited all the evidence for my position from observable experimental findings. Which one of my explanations is wrong? Gravity? LT effect? Inabillity of 2 or more objects to be in the same place in the same time?

quote:

---

Why does the Sun (or any other body) not get pushed to the centre of the universe? Why does the Sun (or any other body) not get pulled towards the outer shell? How are you constantly balancing all the different forces? Your model is unworkable.

---

ARE YOU MENTALLY RETARDED!?!!?!?!?!??!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?IF THE SHELL IS EXERTING TWO FORCES IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS THAN THE OBJECTS STAY AT THE SAME DISTANCE. ONE IS THE PUSH TOWARD THE CENTER FORCE, THE OTHER IS THE PULL FROM THE CENTER FORCE OF GRAVITY.

quote:

---

The fact that at any given time you are selectively applying the force you want to the body you want to achieve the result you want.

​

The model does not add up. And it certainly cannot predict planetary orbits. Which some might see as something of a weakness.....

---

The model does not add up, the model does not work, the model is flawed. Can't you say anything else? Do you have no other arguments than simply saying t he the model does not work?

quote:

---

Interestingly enough, you can calculate the size of something using simple trig and ratios. First you need to know how far away the Sun is. What we do is measure the distance to the Moon using the time it takes a radar beam to travel to the Moon and back. Then when the moon is at a right angle between the Earth and the Sun, we calculate the angle between the side and hypotenuse at the Earth point.

---

But we do not know how far away the Moon is.

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. Thirty-two of the forty-two on line calculations of the 2004 Venus transit arrived at a lower parallax than the radar value. The on line calculator computed the parallax using either Halley’s method or Delisle’s method. The mean value from all the calculations was 8.538" of arc. This is about three million kilometers larger than the radar distance. (Halley’s method involves timing the duration of the transit. Delisle’s method uses clock-time to time the moments of ingress or egress.) The reader could argue that these measurements could be in error. Without question, observers can make mistakes. How likely is it that generations of astronomers keep on making mistakes that gradually increment in the same direction?

---

Essay:Victorious Biblical Astronomy Part 8 - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceAs 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.

quote:

---

Your statements are contradictory. You say you never said there is a force that acts on the Earth only. Then you go on to say that the forces of the LT effect arise only near the center. The forces of the LT effect are a force that act on the Earth only. So which is it? Are there forces that act solely on the Earth or not?

---

That's how the force works. If something came closer to the Earth's center, it too would be affected by the force. The LT effect happens to occure near the center.

quote:

---

You said that the sun, moon, planets, the moons of all the planets, etc. are not being pushed towards the Earth because no two objects can occupy the same space. What was asked of you is why isn't the sun, moon, and everything else but the Earth not moving towards the Earth?

---

No. I said the reason they are not in the center is because the Eath is, and since two objects can't be in the same place at the same time, only the Eaeth can, and is in the center. The reson they do not get pushed towards the Earth, is simply becuase the shell is exerting a force the pushes and pulls the objects int he same time.

quote:

---

What causes everything to be pushed into the center? If gravitational is not universal, why does the shell seem to exert a universal attraction constantly equal to the force that pushes everything to the center. If gravitation wasn't universal, that would mean that gravity would be inconsistent in different regions of space. It would seem that your model in fact assumes universal gravitation.

---

The shell's rotation pushes everything towards teh center. Gravitation does not need to be universal for all objects to have it, yet at different magnitudets.

quote:

---

Your explanation depends on your shell wobbling, rotating, pushing, pulling, and making circles. Explain all the forces that cause your shell to do all those things.

---

It's simply inertia that keeps the shell going. There is nothing more. Once it got set in motio0n it does not stop.

quote:

---

Math is not evidence in physics, that is true, but mathematical models are necessary to help us explain what we observe in the real world. Mathematical models help us to make predictions. But physicists do no accept any mathematical models unless they are capable of explaining current data and are capable of making predictions which can be verified through experimentation. So when I ask for your mathematical model, I am asking for it because it is necessary in order to make predictions that can be verified.

---

Fine. If you are that interested, search this topic and you will find it. It's not that hard.

quote:

---

Explain how a spiraling and distance-varying sun causes the tides! On Earth, the moon causes the tides, but the Sun's gravity can amplify or lessen the effect at certain times of the year. But you don't believe in universal gravitation. So explain the forces from the spiraling and distance-varying sun that cause the Spring and Neap Tides.

---

The same way an orbiting and a tilted Earth causes the seasons and tides. Don't you get it!? It's the same explanation by same forces, the only differnece is that motions are switched. In your model the Earth moves, in my model the Sun does. That is all to it. And as I already pointed out. Both Sun and the Moon can have gravity, but not necessarily the same magnitude as the one on Earth.

quote:

---

He said a lot more than that. He believed in the electromagnetic forces and felt that everything could be explained through that single force. For instance, his idea of gravity was that there were tubes that channeled energy down, causing gravity. This is akin to saying angels are pushing down on people to prevent them from falling up.

---

Are you retarded? Is saying that little balls are hurling through a wire and are producing electricity, saying that angels are pushing them and causing electricity? You idiot! Electrons are not magic. Neitehr is the aether.

quote:

---

The fact is, Tesla never did produce a paper on his theory, explaining the model and the mathematics. That's why you can't find any detailed information on it, which is fine for you because it makes it simpler for you to digest and use. But it doesn't serve to convince any rational being.

---

Cretin! He produced the papers but he died before he could publish them! After his death his hotel room got raided by the FBI and all his papers were taken away.If you actually had a single brain cell in that stupid head of yours you would know that FBI has 287 pages of documents on Tesla. It's even on the FBI webpage!Freedom of Information/Privacy Act — FBIIf you actually knew anything about him, you would know that all his inventions were based on the aether. So if they all worked, it means his theoretical ideas were just as good. He invented the radio, the alternating current, wireless energy transfer among other things. And now you are going to say he was wrong!?

quote:

---

SO, you have made it clear that you aren't interested in an honest debate.

---

No, you are the one who made it clear who is mentally challenged.

quote:

---

You have made assertions and claims with nothing to back up those claims.

---

Again, you crazy lunatic. If you browsed through the topic a bit, you would have seen I have posted a link to every single statement I have made.

quote:

---

Your idea lacks predictive power, and relies on a rotating, pulling, pushing, polka-dotted, and god knows what else sphere.

---

What predictions did you make? Nothing. ZERO. You simply keep repeating crap over and over again.

quote:

---

You argue gravitation is not universal when even your pushing pulling sphere would require universal gravitation in order to work as you say it should.

---

No it wouldn't. This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life. How many times did you fall on your head while you were little? The only thing that my model requires is the gravitational field with variying amount of gravitational force. If that is so, that gravity does not have to be universal.

quote:

---

You argue your model works yet you have not shown how it works, the mathematics behind it, or any description of the forces that are acting upon the planets in the solar system.

---

Again, you imbecile. BROWSE THE GOD DAMN TOPIC AND YOU WILL FIND IT! Are you blind or stupid. I have 187 posts on this topic. MORE THAN THREE TIMES MORE than the person who has the second most posts on the topic, and that is only 52 posts. Everyone has way less than me. Don't tell me I didn't show anything about my model. Because if I didn't, than nobody else didn't either.

quote:

---

In short, it is incredible to believe that you actually believe your model is simpler than a heliocentric model. I can only conclude as Devil's Advocate has concluded: you are either a troll or an extremely misguided person. Either way, I say good day to you sir.

---

Finally. Go away, and never come back. You are the dumbest poster I ever had mispleasure dealing with... Where the hell do these people come come up with their attitudes...

quote:

---

So only light visible by humans is real? Creatures that see outside of the visible spectrums of humans do not experience reality?

​

What types of input is 'real"?

​

Radio waves are not real? You only trust data from the naked eye?

---

Are you retarded? Do you read and speak English very well? Did you have a lobotomy as a kid? Did you ever read, and understand my post? I never said that radio waves are not real, I said that those radio waves are interpreted, and made to look like planets, stars, and galaxies, based on the heliocentric, relativistic big bang model of the universe, USING COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGES!The radio waves are real, but the pictures are not. They are computer picutres of what scientists THINK, they just THINK, the radio waves are. It's basicly a fantasy!

quote:

---

Well I see where this is going. You have realized that your posts are lacking and you have nothing. Therefore, you resort to the personal attack.

---

After 189 posts on this topic, more than three times more then the second person with the most posts, a still you people don't understand anything. I have every right to call you everything I want.

quote:

---

You do realize that everything you see with your own eyes is an interpretation don't you. Your brain interprets the stimulus coming in to your optic never and interprets it.

---

Yes I do. But if you want to go into this kind of a discussion, you are leaving science and going into philosophy. We are talking about science now, not philosophy. Science assumes that matter we observe is real. There is no way to prove this assumption, because our eyes and brain is also matter, but if you want to do science, you are forced to accept matter as real. This is an axiom. From this axiom we create facts by observations, and from those observations we formulate theories.

quote:

---

Since human beings have a limited visual spectrum, date from the rest of the spectrum must be "converted' to a representation that allows us to see what the radio waves actually are picking up.

---

But in the case of NASA, you don't simply just convert them. They add ARTIFICIAL OBJECTS to the pictures. Meaning, not real.

quote:

---

From your argument you would have to say that radar and sonar are not real, because the displays that show the output are COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGES.

---

Wrong. We know what those signals are describing. They are all here on Earth. All those objects can be observed. Unlike those that are supposed to be millions of light-years away.

quote:

---

BTW, grow the fuck up. There is no reason to attempt to be abusive here, it just makes you sound like a child.

---

You can't tell me to stop being abusive, and use teh word fuck in the same sentance. That's stupid. It's like saying: "For fuck's sake, stop swearing!"

quote:

---

Who said I was using GR? I'm also not talking about the geometry of the whole universe. I'm speaking of a minor subset of it, so speaking only about that minor subset, I need only use that minor subset. It's like talking about positive, non-even prime numbers. I can say that the smallest positive, non-even prime number is 3, without having to worry about the number -23546. It's not part of the subset I'm looking at and is therefore irrelevant.

---

Than what are you using if not GR? And no, you can't just pick whatever you want. Simply because just because you decided to pick something, doesn't mean that it's a closed system. It's not. Just because you say that other objects in space do not affect the Solar system, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU PICK IT, has nothing to do with reality. Other objects still affect it.

quote:

---

WRONG! It is saying that our calculations for universal gravity are wrong, not that the concept is wrong.

---

LOOOOL! And the calculations are wrong, why!?!?!?! Maybe because the idea that those calculations are based on is... guess what... WRONG!And what might that idea be? Well the assumption of universal gravitation.

quote:

---

You quoted the part that says our calculations are wrong. If you think that part says what you claim, then, again, your English comprehension is lacking.

---

No it doesn't. The word "calculation" is never used.

quote:

---

As fopr saying that an approximation that works in special instances means the entire concept must be thrown out the window is ludicrous. Yes, the article claims our calculations when speaking about large scales is wrong. That does NOT mean that there are no calculations we could develop that will work for all scales. It does not mean that if you solve this new meta-gravity calculation for our localized space, it won't simplify to GR or to Newton's equations.

---

Than why are our calculations wrong? If gravity is actually universal, than why do we get the wrong results?

quote:

---

And this is all beside the point. If you don't believe in the large scales needed for our GR calculations to show error, then you've got nothing left to argue. It'd be like me saying, if a giant monster exists, it has a green nose, although I don't believe giant monsters exist, and if you believe giant monsters have blue noses you're wrong on two counts because we all know they have green noses...oh, and they don't exist. You can't have both, either they have green noses, OR they don't exist. Take your pick, either our calculations begin to fail at large distances (according to this idea, which is one of many) OR there are no lareg distances. You can't have both.

---

Of course I can. Simply because the idea of universal gravity is wrong. And, there are no large distances. Why exactly, can I no have both?

quote:

---

Yep. And if only small scales exist (as you claim for the universe) then the Earth is flat, right?

---

True. But Earth is much larger, so it's not flat. Unlike, the universe, which is small, and geocentric.

quote:

---

I interpret it as saying that Newton's calculations, which he thought were universal, are not. What do you think it means?

---

No, and no. It never even mentions the word "calculation". The quote specificly says, and uses the word "law". Like in "The law of universal gravitation". Therefore, the article is talking about the whole idea of universal gravity. Not calculations.

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 will post this information in general. This is for anyone that thinks there are some mistakes in my links.Kantoor huren | Kantoor huren of bedrijfsruimte hurenThis is the graph from the California site. If he was not as stupid as he was, he would have ccrolled down past the calculator and actually saw the graph. The graph is right under the calculator. And you can clearly see that the number of 8.538" is noted as the mean value, and 8.794 as the true value.So there, he can go and pray to Darwin now. Maybe he will let him evolve a bigger brain.Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No. Not that I am aware of.

---

Mentally retarded people are actually not aware that they are mentally retarded.

quote:

---

You are simply assuming that the two forces balance each other out no matter where any body is in the universe. A feat of mathematical wizardry that just does not add up.

​

How do you justify the two forces always being equal but opposite despite the bodies being acted upon being in continual motion and thus positions? You are simply making it up to justify nonsense.

---

It's a good explanation becuase the farther the body is, the less gravity there is to attract it, but also less force is exerted on the body that should push it away. If the size, mass and the speed of rotation match, the forces can be balaced. This is a no brainer. The same as a helicopter can balance it's flight in mid air. It's engine is pushing the helicopter up, yet the gravity is pushing it down. But the two forces are balanced, and it's simply standing in mid air.

quote:

---

Take the Sun. According to your nonsensical model it is acted on by the gravitational effect of the Earth resolutely glued to the centre of the universe. And the Lense-Thirring effect also pushing it to the centre of the universe. And the gravitational force of the outer shell pulling it away from the centre of the universe.

---

The LT effect is only responsible for the circular motion of things like the Faucault Pendulum. It arises only near the center. Yet the rotation of the shell is the one that pushes the objects toward the center thruout the universe. And yes, the shell's gravity cancels it out.

quote:

---

Thus the resultant force would have had the Sun spiralling into the Earth many moons ago. And in fact every other body close to "the centre of the universe".

​

And yet according to your bogus assumptions all the forces miraculously balance out perfectly as if by magic to result in exactly the orbits that are predicted by sane Newtonian Heliocentric models of the Solar system.

---

If that was true, why did not Earth, Moon, and all the other planets spiral into the Sun, so many millions of years ago? Obviously, the forces are in balance in either case. They cancel each other out. Even if they do not, in only 6000 years or so, no major changes would have occured. Actually it is your model that has a problem. In my model, all the spiraling into something could not have occured yet, simply becasue there was not enough time. Yet in your model, there was about 15 billion years. Which is enough time for the Mercury to spiral into the Sun, being so close to it.

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!Anyone can clearly see in my first Creationwiki link, that the link to the original article was there. I didn't swithch anything, and nothing was bogus. If my first link was "bougs" somehow, that who did Oni-moron find it int he first place? Obviousoly, it was from my original Creationwiki link.And another thing, the reason I only provided the picture only link, is because evrybod has already seen the original article, and the picture i posted is on that original article. Nobody is hiding anything.Anyone can see for themselves that the original article has the picture here:Bedrijfsruimte huren in UtrechtAnd that the Creationwiki article links to the above article. All you have to do is to find this sentance in the Creationwiki article:

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.

---

And yes, you will see that the words "California observatory" are linked to the original article, which has the picture of the graph I posted. And both numbers 8,538, and 8,794 are there on the graph.

quote:

---

If the forces specific to your model cancel each other out perfectly how do you know any of them are actually there?

---

Because we see their effects. We can see the anisotropic magnetic radiation coming from space. Which is best described as a rotation within a sphere. Therefore, the forces should exist.

quote:

---

A heliocentric model in conjunction with Newtonian gravity can mathematically predict the orbits of all the planets in the solar system. General Relativity can do so even more precisely.

​

You cannot even mathematically show what forces act on any given body in your model. You simply assert that the forces acting are whatever you need them to be to prop up your contrived nonsense.

---

And what about the Barbour and Berttoti paper I showed you weeks ago? Did you already forget about it? Or didn't you even wan to notice it?

quote:

---

Which is why you may not fully appreciate the irony of you making that statement.

---

It could very well be, but I doubt it.