Relativity is wrong...

Ok, so you accept that gravity acts on masses and causes them to move. The same (or more) force that the sun exerts on Mars is exerted on the Earth. You calim being "in the middle" of forces somehow makes imbalances disappear...or you're proposing a new force for which we have no evidence. I can't think of another option.If being in the middle counterbalances forces, this is some sort of new science, since in Heliocentric theories of our solar system, the sun wobbles, despite being in the middle, because the forces acting on it from moment to moment change. You have to show, somehow, that the forces acting on the earth are always in equilibrium, otherwise you're talking out your ass.If you're proposing another force that somehow keeps the earth in the middle and is so much stronger than gravity that it will cancel out any and all wobble caused by the fluctuating gravity field the earth is in, then there must be some way to detect this force. Provide evidence for this force or you're talking out your ass. But ofrces don't work like that. If you have 1 million tons on one side of you and 5 million tons on the other, you're in the middle, but the stronger force is the gravity exerted by the 5 million tons and you will, at the very least, wobble toward it. What you're proposing would completely contradict everything we know and use in science all the way back to Newton and further. F=ma, if the mass changes, so does the force. You have to propose a mechanism for keeping the mass equal on all sides of the earth at all times despite the differential movement of things around the earth. If you can't, you're talking out your ass.If this "shell" exerts a force, what is it made of? Is it matter? Is it energy? Is it something we can't detect, but is obviously there because, well, you say so? Have you ever spun a bowl and put a ball in the bottom? The bowl's spinning pulls on the ball and makes it spin. If the shell exerts a force on the earth, and the shell is spipnning, then the shell will force the earth to spin along with it. This is simple physics. You have to show how this would not happen, or, for the final time, you're talking out your ass. So, you have at least three things you must provide a mechanism or evidence for, otherwise, you heard it, you're talking out your ass.

If I'm only talking about the solar system, it makes much more sense to talk about the center of the solar system rather than the center of something else. If I have an apple on the adge of a table, and I want to know what the center of the apple is, do I have to take into account the center of the table at all? How about the center of the Earth? The center of the universe? No, just the apple, since that's all my focus is on. Did you read the link? I did, and it says the opposite of this. It says gravity is universal, it just behaves differently than we currently believe. It does nothing to bolster your attempt to show that in a fluxuating field, something can still remain unmoved. It makes no sense. The point of the article is that as we get to bigger things, gravity works harder. But, you can't even use this article in your model, since your claim for the size of the universe is smaller than this article deals with, so you're still stuck with normal Newtonian/Einsteinian gravity. It seems you haven't really thought ouot your responses, merely latching onto something that you think says what you think you need to counter my argument, despite the fact that it says the opposite of what you claim and that for it to be right in the first place, your model of the universe has to be wrong.

Yes, and all the non-negligible variables are taken into account when we look just at the solar system. When I say "the center of the solar system" what other variables would you expect me to take into consideration, other than the solar system. Anything outside the solar system, by definition, has no impact when labelling parts of the solar system. Hmm, reading comprehension not your strong suit, eh? It says, Newton's laws work for small scale situations. We knew his laws didn't apply all over, which is why we developed relativity. This article is saying, when you get even bigger, Newton's laws (and possibly Einstein's) don't work any more and we need an even more generalized understanding of gravity over very large distances and large masses.Again, it says gravity is universal, but our understanding of it is localized. It also says, essentially, this only comes into effect with large distances and masses, things your model denies even exist. So, you misunderstand the article and disagree with it, so why did you post it again? How can it work at all in those circumstances if it's not universal? That's like saying my car works harder to go up hills, but then saying my car is unable to work above sea level. Either it can, and just works harder, or it can't and doesn't work at all. Which is it? You quoted a line and interpreted it exactly opposite of how it would actually be interpreted by someone with any science background and English comprehension. Either learn how to read/speak English and learn how to debate or go away!

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. WRONG! It is saying that our calculations for universal gravity are wrong, not that the concept is wrong. 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.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.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. Yep. And if only small scales exist (as you claim for the universe) then the Earth is flat, right? I interpret it as saying that Newton's calculations, which he thought were universal, are not. What do you think it means?

Not to any significant effect. FOr the last time. If I want to tell someone how to get to the center of my house when they're standing in my living room, does it make any sense to talk about the street, the city, the country, Mars, Andromeda, or anything that isn't actually part of, or in, my house? No. So, if I want to tell someone how to get to the center of the solar system, why would I talk about things outside the soalr system? If you have to do that to make your model make sense, then I posit your model just plain don't make sense. Nope. The assumption is that localized effects hold true for generalized problems. It turns out they don't. This doesn't say, at all, that universal gravitation doesn't exist, it merely says that localized effects do not translate to generalized problems...as we already know. The papaer is positing that what we thought was the generalized equation is actually just another localized one. It's more general that Newton, but still not as general as we need it for large distances. It says nothing about whether or not there is, in fact, a generalized equation, and in fact, it attempts to give one. Quite a strange thing to do if there isn't one, don't you think? You're right, which is where comprehension comes in. See, I can understand an agrument, then put it in my own words and still mean the same thing. In all of your threads, you've shown a complete inability to do so. You quote entire passages from websites, you link to entire websites without explaining what the website is saying, or even where, exactly, it says what you think it says. I understand the argument, and you keep showing you don't. Believe me or not, it's obvious to others here, and they're the only ones I have any hope of influencing because I know you're not ever going to change your mind when it's stuck in "pride mode." As I said above, it's because what we thought was a generalized equation turned out (in the argument of this paper) to be another localized set of equations. The "evidence" for no generalized gravity, if we even grant your peculiar, incorrect interpretation of the paper, is predicated on there being large distances. If there are no large distances, this paper cannot be used as evidence of anything since it's describing a pipedream. And I'm just pointing out that you're arguing both that the large-scale measurements show something, AND that there are no large-scale measurements. You can't have it both ways...again! It says "Newton's Law" which is a very specific thing. Again, I can comprehend the argument and restate it in my own words. You can't. You're reduced to being a "find" command in a word processor. "Sorry, no instances of the word 'calculation' found." Again, comprehension, it's a great tool.

That's debatable. If I'm giving directions to get ther, then sure, and if I ever meet someone who is outside of my solar system, I'll do so. On the other hand, If I'm talking extemporaneously with someone in some dive bar on the other side of the horsehead Nebula, it doesn't matter exactly where the sun and the solar system are, I can simply say that the sun is the center because everything is going around the sun, and nothing about outside the solar system need be mentioned. But the effects of the gravity of other objects is negligible. As you've said yourself, the force of gravity is inversly proportional to the square of the distance. Unless you can show that something is close enough to make any difference, then I can reaosnably exclude them, especially when we don't see any perturbation of orbits caused by something on the other side pulling. False. Extremely false. As you should know, Relativity has a lot more variables than Newton's equations, but when you solve Relativity for the Earth's surface, you find that most of the variables cancel out and you're left with Newton's Equations. The reason is, Neton was looking at a specific place and isn't going to notice when there are other variables that cancel each other out. For example, 1+3=4, but 1+3+5-2+3-6=4 as well. DOes that mean the first equation is wrong? No, it just means the other numbers cancel each other out. So, if we find out there are other variables in Universal Gravitation, it will turn out, I gurantee it, that if you solve for smaller distances, you'll find that those variuables cancel out and we're left with Relativity. You're now misunderstanding me...your comprehension problems are showing. Gravitation works perfectly on all levels, but being imperfect beings, our current understanding of how gravity works could be flawed. We've only recently had the ability to measure gravity's expression on such large distances to such a degree of accuracy, so it's no surprise that there are things we didn't anticipate. It has nothing to do with Earth. It has to do with vast distances. Any gravitational bodies closer to each other than the distances between local groups of galaxies will behave as Relativity says they should. It's only when the distance between them exceeds that level that it starts to do weird things. All of these are experiencing gravitational effects, so gravity must be there, right? You seem to be conflating our current understanding and equations of gravity with the actual effect of it. Gravity is universal, our understanding of it, however, is incomplete. Then citing articles that assume large distances is not the way to argue. FOr the articles to be right, you have to assume large distances exist. If they don't, then the article is talking about gibberish...and so are you. Correct, as new information comes in, we revise our understanding. That's science, and is why we stop calling things laws any more except for things that have historically been called such. When it became apparent that Newton's Laws were not Universal, we developed relativity. The paper is arguing that relativity is not universal either. Not one of those statements, however, says that gravitation is not universal, merely that our models, our understanding, and our equations do not refer to universal gravitation, only local gravitation for expanding meanings of the word "local."

It's the simplest explanation, and until someone comes along and shows that the simplest explanation CANNOT be true, it makes the most sense to hold to that. We can track the orbits of the planets, and we don't see any perturbation. Now, if the whole solar system gets perturbed, such that the sun and everything around it gets shifted by the same amount, then it doesn't matter, since the solar system remains the same, just in a different position, making no difference to things inside the solar system compared to other things inside the solar system.Saying maybe this and maybe that is all fine and good, but until you can SHOW that your maybe is an "in fact," you're only spinning your wheels. Relativity takes Newton's laws and expands them to consider different frames of reference. Newton's laws work on Earth because we are all in the same reference frame. We're pretty close to the same frame for all the probes and shuttles we launch as well. What we found, however, is that as speeds get close to c, Newton's laws stop working. Looking back, this isn't surprising, since the frames are different, but when your entire life is spent in one frame, and there is no reason to think there are more frames, why would we have expected Newton to account for them?Now, if this papaer is correct, we're left considering that maybe there are meta-frames, or other variables that cancel out in the scenarios we've been using ever since, and that large distances are the next thing we have to account for. That just means our understanding is expanding and we need a more general set of equations than we currently have. Maybe, I'm not going to rule it out, but we're a long way from being able to make that statement with any reliability or credibility when we have many other options to check out. One such would be the one in the paper you referenced. Your statement is false. The equations are ture, even Newton's are true. You just have to specifiy the frame of reference you're using it in. The equations didn't get proven false, they just got proven specific. The models we have for all of science are true, they're just not complete. As we learn more, we put more pieces in the puzzle, but that rarely means we have the pieces completely in the wrong spots for the parts we currently have. Again, it's possible, but unlikely...and there is a lot of hard work that would need to be done to give this idea even a slim amount of reliability or credibility. I'm not trying to discourage any lines of thinking and exploring, but you have not done any of the work and you come in here all cocky claiming you have it right and everyone else in the entire world (except for a small handful) are wrong and imbecilic. You come off as a crackpot when you do that. Wrong. Not "whatever the distances." It's only wrong over LARGE distances. If there are NO large distances, then the equations hold just fine. They work on Earth, they work to get probes to other planets and moons, and they work to get shuttles and rockets to LEO, all very precisely. Sounds pretty good to me. My logic is sound. Please show the exact places where it has gone wrong. Yours, however, relies on emotionality, rebelliousness, and douchebaggery. You have a strange idea of the word "wrong." We have incomplete understandings of universal gravitation, but we have very good understandings of gravitation over only "small" distances of thousands of light years in varying frames of acceleration. We're not "WRONG" we're "INCOMPLETE" and the simplest explanation is usually the best one. Your explanation is the most convoluted, precisely maintained load of claptrap to ever be considered.It has been weighed, it has been measured, and it has been found wanting.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not simple. It's simple in the fact that the equations needed to explain the motion of everything in the universe are simple and easy to calculate. The equations we would have to use in your convoluted universe would be messy, all but unintelligible garbage, and would not give us any sort of framework on whcih to say "WHY" anything is happening the way it is. I know you're not trying to show anything, you only asserting things.It doesn't matter if we're perturbed. If we can't see any perturbation, that means any perturbation affects the entire solar system the same way and thus can be factored out. I don't even understand what you're saying here, and it's obvious you don't either. We see light moving at the same speed no matter where we look, whether it's on Earth, on Mars, at the edge of the solar system, or anywhere else. As I said before, it's possible that gravity is not universal, but it's not the most evidenced explanation, nor is it the most parsimonious explanation, so jumping to that as the explanation is unwarranted and holding to it as strongly as you are is crackpottery. You've got it backward again. You're the one advocating for one of the options, I'm the one saying we don't have any reason to jump to that one conclusion. To keep your analogy, we have 100 suspects. One of them matches the DNA at the scene, so we're going to hold to that person, even if there are a couple circumstantial bits of evidence that are ambiguous as to that person's guilt.By contrast, you're pointing the finger at the one person in the line-up with a rock-solid alibi and saying, "it's him, and the evidence be damned!" Um, no. That's what we've learned. Reference frames mean a great deal. We can see that with great speed we get time and length dilation. What we would like is an equation that works for all forces and can be solved for every reference frame: that would be the Super Unified Theory, but rest assured, it will have variables for the reference frame built into it. Yes we are...and you're doing it wrong. If a kid points at a truck and says, "That's a red truck." Do you say, "no, you're wrong, it's red and black and blue and clear and white and silver"? It's not complete, but it's not wrong. It works for the reference frames we commonly see and exist in. Any equation we find that may extend the usefulness will solve down to relativity if we solve for the same reference frames just as relativity solves down to Neton's Laws if we solve for the single reference frame of being on the surface of Earth. Incomplete does not mean wrong. Yeah, but that's a horrible analogy. What you're doing is saying, "2+3=5 is wrong because it doesn't solve for everything in the universe, it's incomplete. It doesn't tell me what 4+99 is, so it can't be right." Again, you're analogy is completely idiotic. You're getting an incorrect solution. OUr equations give us correct solutions for specified scenarios, so for those scenarios, it's complete. WHen we try to extrapolate from those scenarios, we find there are more variables. It's like drug trials. If we find that giving people a drug works for very specific pains, and we market the drug as an analgesic for those pains, is the drug a bad one becaue in 5% of the population it makes the pain worse? No, it works in 95% of the population and should be used, but we should just be aware that if you fall into that 5%, you shouldn't take that drug. We've examined as much of the universe as we can see, and we find that forces stay constant. No area of space is "special" and no area of space behaves differently than any other. Until we find something that breaks this general rule, it's illogical to assume we're looking at one. It's on you to show why we should abandon one of the main tenets of science in general and cosmology/physics specifically. A flawed analogy doesn't get better from repetition, but based on your debate tactics, you'll surely disagree with me there.