Relativity is wrong...

quote:

---

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.

---

Two reasons:1.) If the person is outside our solar system, you should better tell him that you house is not in the Andromed galaxy, but here on Earth. The farther away the person is from your house, the more specifc you have to be.2.) The other reason is that gravity has nothing to do with this example. It doesn't matter where the person is located if he wants to find your house, the gravity will still affect Earth the same way. Because all the positions relative to one another are the same, and gravitational forces are the same. Unlike if all other galaxies didn't exist. There would be a repositioning in our solar sistem.

quote:

---

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?

---

And why is that!? Why do not local equations hold on general level? If gravity is the same thing here on Earth, as in the Andromeda glaaxy, than equations must give the same results. The only other explanation is that gravity is not universal. And that is why it works fine only near the Earth.

quote:

---

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."

---

But your explanation is flawed. Please explain W-H-Y does gravity work only on local level, and not in gneral. If it is not because of it being non-universal, than what else could it be. Are the equations wrong? If so, than your whole model goes to pieces...

quote:

---

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.

---

Oh, well than, that's great to hear. You do know what this means don't you? It means your model of the universe is DEAD! It does not work. It means you ahve no mathematical model for the movements of the astronomical bodies except near the Earth. Which means you have nothing.

quote:

---

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.

---

The evidence for no universality is everywhere.Gravity - WikipediaFor few examples, whe have extra fast stars that move faster than they should, if gravity was universal. The Pioneer anomaly that shows that the satelites are slowing down faster than they would if gravity was universal. Flyby anomaly where spacecrafts experience more gravitational pull than they should. Anomalous increases of the AU where planetary orbits are expanding faster than if gravity was universal. And more...

quote:

---

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!

---

Wrong. I'm arguing that what scientists THINK are large scale measurements, are shown to be wrong. They are actually very close, and still wrong.

quote:

---

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.

---

I know it says Newton's Law! That's the point. The full name of that "law" is the Newton's Law of UNIVERSAL gravitation. Which we have seen is a far cry from any kind of laws...

As any one can clearly see these here is a statement of FAITH, not FACT.

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.

---

Just look at it. they guy says that he EXPECTS that the error will diminish. Well I expect that there will be less imbeciles on this forum as time goes by, but is that a statement of what will actually happen, or what I hope will happen? Obviously it's not a fact. The true number was 8.538. And if it some day changes, than fine. But as of now, it stands.And they 2003/2004 mistake, it's not a mistake, it clearly says 2003 Martian parralax in the PDF that is linked from creationwiki.http://www.mccarthyobservatory.org/pdfs/pm031117.pdfIt even says so in the title!

quote:

---

And yet the forces are undetectable. Because they cancel each other out perfectly. At all points in your spehere. Despite the fact you can only assert this rather than show it by any calculation of forces.

---

Who cares. If the shelle exists, tha it just has to be thick enough to produce such a force at it's rotational speed. There is nothing strange about it. The simple conclusion is that the universe rotates based on the observed electromagnetic radiation from space. If it was no anisotropic, than we would conclude that it was us that are rotating. But it is anisotropic, meaning that it gets twisted when it's coming towards the Earth. And the way it is twisted is in the shape of a sphere. Which represents the rotating universe.

quote:

---

I did. But since then you have introduced a host of other forces which arbitrarily act in exactly the ways you need them to behave to sustain your silly model whilst remaining entirely undetectable as forces in themselves.

---

The magnetic radiation points to rotation of the universe. Not to the rotation of the Earth. The effects are detectable.

quote:

---

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 you don't know that. You are simply assuming that everything is going around the Sun based on the idea that actually everything is going around the Sun. That circular logic.

quote:

---

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.

---

Maybe not from your reference point. Maybe the whole Solar system is perturbed. Did you ever think about that? How do you detect that if you take the solar system as your reference point? Obviopusly you can't.

quote:

---

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.

---

What other variables are you talking about? The first equation is obviusly wrong. Yes, the results are the same, but the equation itself is wrong. BEcause if the variables changed, the result would change also. It is only chance that different equations give the same results.

quote:

---

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.

---

OR! Gravity is not universal. Did that ever cross your mind? Could that be the answer also?

quote:

---

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.

---

Which means that the equation is applicable only on certain scales. Which also means the equation is false. But that's okay, they all are. All scientifc model are only temporary, and are simply models of reality. Not true reality as it is.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, we have no idea what is accelerating them! We simply think it's gravitational forces. And I'll ask you again, if you say that our knowledge of gravity is incomplete, could it possibly be, that the part where our knowledge is lacking is about gravitation's universality?

quote:

---

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.

---

Of course it is. Simply because whatever the distances, the equations proved themselves wrong.

quote:

---

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."

---

Your logic is unbeliveable.So you admit that we are wrong about our models, we are wrong about our understanding, we are wrong about our equations, we are wrong about Newton's laws, we are wrong about relativity BUT!!! We are NOT, and we NEVER EVER can be WRONG about the universality of gravity!?!!?LOL anyone!?

If anyone is still interested. It's plain and clear as day that the Creationwiki article points to both the 2003 article, and the 2004 article. So there is nothing wrong with it.http://www.mccarthyobservatory.org/pdfs/pm031117.pdf
Bedrijfsruimte huren in UtrechtBoth of these links can be found hereEssay:Victorious Biblical Astronomy Part 8 - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

quote:

---

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.

---

No it's not. You are simply saying it is. You have an infinite universe that is only 15 billion light years in diameter. Which is 4D, but is also flat. You ahve black holes, dark matter, dark energy, curved space, trillions of stars, etc. IT'S NOT SIMPLE!!!!!!!

quote:

---

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.

---

I'm not even trying to show it. It' snot my intention. I'm just pointing out flaws in your model. In which you can't know if you are perturbed or not.

quote:

---

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?

---

Or, maybe we are simply not orbiting the sun a 30 km/s. Did you ever think that could be an explanation? Maybe that is why we see the light at constant speed here on Earth.

quote:

---

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.

---

Or, it could mean that the gravity we thought was universal, simply isn't. Is it not possible for gravity not to be universal? Does it have to be?

quote:

---

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.

---

It's actually oppostie from. That you are making a positive statement, based on possibly 0.00001% of the universe observed. Wouldn't it be more realistic to firs observe 99% of the universe and that with a lot more confidence to conclude that gravity is universal. Insted you observe a slice of universe and claim that the WHOLE UNIVERSE acts liek it does here, with respect to gravity.That's like interogating 1 person from 1000 and claiming that he is probbably the one responsible for the murder, and he is the one who did it, and we will be sure of it, untill we can prove all otehrs didn't do it. That's just painfully wrong logic.

quote:

---

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.

---

If you have to specify the frame of reference than they are not true. They would be true if they would hold in every single reference frame. That would than be called the grand unifying theory. Something that has been tried and has been failed to achive in physics.

quote:

---

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.

---

BY DEFINITION IF IT'S NOT COMPLETE IT'S NOT TRUE!!!! WE ARE DEALING WITH FIRST GRADE SCHOOL LOGIC HERE!!!!Thats like saying that "2 + 3 = 4", is not wrong, it's just incomplete. And that we just need to add something to make it complete. By definition, this equation is wrong.

quote:

---

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.

---

LOL!? Where? Where did I say that I'm the one who holds the ultimate truth!? I never said that. I only called people imbeciles because they deserved it. I never said that I must be correct in my views.

quote:

---

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.

---

Which means they are wrong, since they do not account for all distances. Or are you claiming that 2 + 3 = 4 is correct in 4/5 cases? I mean, my equation I just wrote holds for four fifths of the final true result. So why calim it's wrong? It's just incomplete!

quote:

---

My logic is sound. Please show the exact places where it has gone wrong. Yours, however, relies on emotionality, rebelliousness, and douchebaggery.

---

You are wrong in claiming that gravity is universal by only examining 0.00001% of the universe. That's not sound logic.

quote:

---

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.

---

Oh, okay than. By your logic, my equation 2 + 3 = 4 holds than. Remember, it's not wrong, it's just incomplete!

quote:

---

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.

---

No. Barbour and Bertotti paper has very simple equations. I have no idea why you are constantly claiming that your model is simpler when it's not. And even if it was, SO WHAT!? Who cares, if its wrong, it's wrong. And it's wrong.

quote:

---

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.

---

But it affects your position relative to distant stars, and other planets.

quote:

---

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.

---

That would be true if for about 100 years, we didn't know this to be false. The Sagnac experiment has shown that light traweling in one direction is faster than light traveling in another direction. So no, we do not see it traveling at the same speed all the time. Besides, I have talked about this at the start of the topic, but you obviously didn't care to read about it.

quote:

---

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.

---

Really? So you, who did not step one foot from this planet Earth, are going to claim that the gravity is EXACTLY THE SAME IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE!?!?You're a crackpot! You've never even been anywhere but the Earth!

quote:

---

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!"

---

Your analogy is painfully flawed since you never even saw the 99 other suspects. You only saw one suspect, and that is the Earth. And based on this one, you are claiming you already know other 99 are not guilty. Let's even say that people went to the Moon. So what? That's it? You are going to base yyour whole conclusion for the WHOLE UNIVERSE, on one planet an one moon!? You are a joke!

quote:

---

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.

---

Nobody ever saw time dilate, or lenght contract. This is simply an ad hoc assumption based on the results that did not fit what was supposed to be explained.

quote:

---

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.

---

It's enough to call it red if the majority of it's color is red. It's a good enough of an approximation.

quote:

---

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."

---

No, I'm not sayign that. I'm saying that 2+3=4 is false. 2+3=5 is correct. If you want to know what is 4+99 than you should solve the equation to get the result. What you are doing is using a flase equation that gets you the wrong result, and it only gives you the right result under certain circumstances, but you are saying that the equation is correct!

quote:

---

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.

---

My equation that says that 2+3=4 is correct is correct in 4/5 of the case. So we just need to tweak it a bit. But it's almost fully corrects, it's just incomplete!

quote:

---

We've examined as much of the universe as we can see, and we find that forces stay constant.

---

No you didn't! You never left the Earth! Seeing the universe does not equal examining it!

quote:

---

No area of space is "special" and no area of space behaves differently than any other.

---

This is an assumption. Why are you claiming this like it's a fact!? For all we know, based on the anisotropic radiation coming from space, we are at the center of the rotating universe.

quote:

---

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.

---

LOL! Are you kidding me!? This is not a rule this is an assumption! Why should I not challenge such a stupid idea int he first place!? Earth is special! Look at it! Where do you see such diversity of life anywhere else?

quote:

---

So this must mean that the region of the earth with the greatest diversity of life should be at the earth's center?

---

No, the Earth's center, is teh Earth's center. Pure logic...

quote:

---

Of course we do not have the ability to determine if there be another planet like earth in another galaxy in say the Andromeda galaxy that is as diverse and our earth simply do the fact that we do not have instruments capable of seeing something that small

---

Great. Untill you do have such instruments, and above all EVIDENCE, we are going to stick with what we know. And that is that the Earth is special.

quote:

---

that far away and also the fact that even if we could see that far we would see what was there millions of years ago.

---

It's not a fact, it's an assumption. We do not know how far away Andromeda is.

quote:

---

The earth is a miniscule planet circling a miniscule star in the arm of an average galaxy somewhere, maybe in the middle, but mostt likely not in the middle, of the visible universe.

---

Evidence? Do you have any? You are simply saying all those things without supporting them.

quote:

---

No, the diversity of life, is the diversity of life. Pure logic...

​

Or at least the kind of logic required to arrive at your kind of conclusions.

---

Yes, the diversity of life, is the diversity of life. Nothing wrong there.

quote:

---

Hold on there. Where is your evidence that there's a "we"? I'm going to stick with what I know. And that is that there's only me, and I'm the one who's special. The universe rotates around me. Wherever I go, I am always at the centre of everything I see.

​

You, on the other hand, are nothing but electrons in my computer, letters on my screen. You are "Smooth Operator Posts Only". So don't you talk about evidence, because I have the evidence right here in front of me.

---

That's true. But you are now going into philosophy. We are talking about science.We can't actually prove anything. We do not really know the external world outside us is real. But if we are going to do science, we have got to agree that it's there.

quote:

---

Evidence please that the earth is special. As for the miniscule earth,

---

How do they know that? How did they measure our pisition relative to other planets? How do they know, that other stars are light years away?

quote:

---

Go to the url I listed in my previous post EvC Forum: Relativity is wrong... and gave a small portion of this. The url gives a better explanation than I can give.

---

It says nothing about techniques used to measure the distances. But nevertheless, I found something interesting. Something that I have been saying all along. The article presents us with 2 great links. Both of which are from the Milky Way galaxy. And it explains that both of them are not real. The first one is the composition of computer generated images.Right here: Page not found – SEDS USAAnd the second one, is actually a drawing. Right here: Page not found – SEDS USAPonder on this for a while if you will. The only way we can see what is out there, is if we draw it first. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There is this new piece of equipment. It's called the Hubble. Maybe you've heard of it?

---

It's not real. Those images are not real. They are all computer generated images. Read this post for clarification.EvC Forum: Relativity is wrong...

For you it ends right here. Please leave the topic.