Relativity is wrong...

Since SonGoku is generally busy working as an actual theoretical physicist, I hope he doesn't mind if I provide the links that you requested. General Relativity predicts the periapsis precessionsKeplerian OrbitsThis is basic relativity stuff, taught to first year undergrads. No there isn't. There will be only one that you can cite from PROGRESS IN PHYSICS, if there are others, please cite those as well.However... Special Relativity to the test

quote:

---

The team found that frequency of the light in the CORE remained constant throughout the experiment, confirming that — over this velocity range — the speed of light is indeed independent of the velocity of the laboratory in which it is measured. This amounts to a verification of the special theory of relativity three times more accurate than previous tests based on the Kennedy-Thorndike method.

​

The 190-day measurement was made possible by the extreme stability of the CORE, which consists of a sapphire cavity chilled to 4 kelvin. At this temperature, there is virtually no thermal vibration in the crystalline structure of the cavity, which would cause the frequency of the standing wave to drift. This effect meant that earlier experiments could only run for a matter of days, during which time the velocity of the Earth changes less dramatically.

---

Overall Validity of Special Relativity

quote:

---

A new limit on the overall validity of special relativity theory has been established by a group of physicists the University of Konstanz (Germany) quantum optics lab in collaboration with the University of Dsseldorf. In a sense this is the highest accuracy overall test of special relativity, a pillar of modern physics. One of the principles of relativity theory is that the velocity of light, c, will be the same as measured by all observers. Thus, for example, an observer on a train moving very quickly toward a signal lamp will record the same light speed as an observer at rest next to the train tracks; the velocity of the train does not in any make the apparent light speed any greater. In a Michelson-Morley-type experiment (MM), the universality of observed light speed is demonstrated by comparing light beams moving in different directions.

​

In another class of experiments, called Kennedy-Thorndike (KT) measurements, one tests that c does not depend on the velocity of the laboratory. Since present MM precision is higher than the best KT precision, the Konstanz researchers aimed for a better KT test as a way of confirming, to a new level of accuracy, that c is independent of both the speed and direction of the lab. Basically they keep watch over a set of standing light waves in a chilled cavity over a 190-day period, during which the Earth traces out more than one-half of its orbit around the sun, altering the velocity of the "lab" by an amount equal to 60 km/sec. If c were to vary with lab speed, then the standing waves (constantly compared to a highly stable atomic clock) would fall out of tune with the cavity; the cavity itself, made of sapphire, has very little thermal expansion at a temperature of 4 K, and could be counted upon to keep its shape. In this way the stability of the resonance frequency translated into a three-fold improvement in accuracy over past KT experiments. A 100-fold improvement in the near future is anticipated. (Achim Peters, 49-7531-88-3823, achim.peters@uni-konstanz.de; Holger Mueller, holger.mueller@uni-konstanz.de) (Braxmaier et al., Physical Review Letters, 7 January 2002; also see researchers' webpage on the experiment.)

---

Tests of Relativity Using a Cryogenic Optical Resonator

quote:

---

In summary, our experiment provides new limits on violations
of the Einstein equivalence principle. We performed a Kennedy-Thorndike experiment by comparing a cryogenic optical resonator to an iodine frequency standard, which restricts a possible dependence of the speed of light on the laboratory velocity. This result improves the overall accuracy of the verification of special relativity by a factor of 3. Alternatively, we may interpret the experiment as a null gravitational redshift experiment which tested the principle of local position invariance, as applied to length-based and electronic transition-based clocks, at the 4% level. Both tests made use of the large modulation amplitude due to the orbital motion of Earth. The potential for significant improvements of relativity tests in the near future using cryogenic optical resonators is clear.

---

Do you need any more or will these suffice?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

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

Actually, no you can't. Well, let me rephrase that, you can but we can just ignore you since you're no one to tell others what to do. The person who told you in the other thread to basically "fuck-off with your nonsense" was an Admin. They have the right to say who stays and who goes. Yes, the "The Michelson—Gale—Pearson experiment" done in 1925. SonGoku refered you to an experiment, which I provided the link for you as well, which was done in 2002. It (the 2002 experiment) was more precise than any other conducted to date.- 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

I provided the links. If you knew all this, then why ask for the links?I have no argument, this is your thread (remember). The onus is on you to establish a proper argument against the predictions made by GR, and show how the didn't match the results.You aksed: SonGoku answered that "GR predicts what the periapsis precessions should be and the value it predicts is the exact value observed."That's the evidence you asked for. You now have to deal with that evidence in your rebuttle to your original question.What is your argument? By "moving" do you mean rotating? If so: Corilis EffectFoucault PendulumOr do you mean orbiting around the Sun? If you mean orbiting, then the answer is that all objects in our solar system are orbiting around the Sun. Predictions for their orbits were made and observed.Need links? Here they are, again: , General Relativity predicts the periapsis precessions, Keplerian Orbits. But then again, you already know this, right? The tests confirm the predictions, do you understand in what order predictions and verification of them goes in?- 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

No you didn't. You refered us to an experiment done in 1925.To quote SonGoku:

quote:

---

You accept one experiment, which when repeated with better equipment by others (Braxmaier et al., (2002)) gave results in support of relativity. Yet you don't accept the several million (yes, million) experiments which support relativity?

---

Now you respond with another single person testimony from an economist (Maurice Allais), not even a physicist. Really?Got anything from an actual physicist or university? Got anything peer-reviewed?- 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

Dude, I'm pretty sure he thinks that either the Earth is not rotating, is not orbiting the Sun, or a combination of both. I was too, but I'm bored and I've never argued this before. There's gotta be a joke in here somewhere and I'm going to find it. I just need a few more posts before he gives me the punchline. A lot of times just letting these nutjobs talk brings me much joy. And btw, since when are you on the sidelines? Has watching cricket softened you up a bit? Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

I agree. He's really not saying anything more than "I don't believe you," we should be able to rationally and logically debate against his position. Which is what I felt SonGoku was doing, that's why I provided the links.- Oni

What matches results? What is meaningless? Be specific... Relativity is a theory that explains an observed phenomenon. Meaning that the phenomenon was seen first before the theory was there to explain it. Therefore if it matches results then it matches the observation. If it matches the observation then it represents a real event in reality. Lets go slowly. Because if one can make a prediction of an observed phenomenon using relativity and it ends up being correct, then one can say with confidence that GR works. Repet this process about a million times and it makes for a pretty good theory.I'd like to re-ask you cavedivers question that you never answered. Does the LHC take into accouunt relativity or not? You are not understanding what you are reading. GR predicted the very thing you are using as evidence against it.From your link:

quote:

---

Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts that rotating bodies drag spacetime around themselves in a phenomenon referred to as frame-dragging. The rotational frame-dragging effect was first derived from the theory of general relativity in 1918 by the Austrian physicists Josef Lense and Hans Thirring, and is also known as the Lense-Thirring effect.

---

It is observed, from Earth. Look up in the sky, record the movements of the planets. This was done 500 years ago. Present evidence against it, don't just say "I don't believe it." Do you even read your links?

quote:

---

So Gehrcke initiated a reprint of Gerber's 1902-paper in the Annalen der Physik in 1917, where he questioned the priority of Einstein and tried to prove a possible Plagiarism by him. However, according to Albrecht Flsing and Roseveare, those claims were rejected, because soon after Gerber's paper was reprinted, scientists like Hugo von Seeliger,Max von Laue published some papers, where it was shown that Gerber's theory is inconsistent and his formula is not the consequence of his premises. Also Roseveare argued that Gerber's theory is inconsistent and that the value for the deflection of light in the gravitational field of the sun in Gerber's theory was too high by the factor 3/2.

---

Einstein writes:

quote:

---

The experts are not only in agreement that Gerber’s derivation is wrong through and through, but the formula cannot be obtained as a consequence of the main assumption made by Gerber. Mr. Gerber’s work is therefore completely useless, an unsuccessful and erroneous theoretical attempt. I maintain that the theory of general relativity has provided the first real explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury.

---

So why do accept one controversial theory -vs- a general concensus among all of physics? Why cite a single theory when it was rejected by physicist, and then use it to disprove the theory that was accepted? No, it was proven to be inconsistent, which is different than "some errors." So why cite it as proof against GR? It is a fact that the Earth is orbiting the Sun. It is observed, visibly. The Earth is spherical, also, btw. It is not an unproven assumtion, no matter how many times you say it. Show me the evidence that it is not orbiting the Sun, as is accepted by all of modern science. Again, Smooth, the onus is on YOU to provide the evidence against it. No it wasn't. Show me the evidence for his peer-reviewed work. Again, the onus is on YOU to prove what you claim. He's an economist that did some experiements and claims that relativity is wrong, fine, show me the work. It was not peer-reviewed because I can't find it, if I'm wrong please prove me wrong.- 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

He's at my house getting fitted for his aluminum hat. - Oni

Eh...I'm bored already. You're not really showing any evidence for anything, so this is getting circular. With an ego like yours it's no wonder you are stupid enough to think you live in a geocentric solar system. I'm sure you think the Sun revolves around you specifically. When they start teaching your crap in universities then well talk again.However... Just one question though, does the LHC use relativity or not?I was just wondering if you had an answer. Does it take into account the math used in relativity?You never gave an answer on the other thread so I was hoping that you'd give one on this thread.So what do you say, does the LHC take into account the theory of relativity or not?If it does, and if it works, then that proves that you have no clue what you're talking about. That's why you won't answer it, you know what it implies. So man up, admit that it does, then go enjoy some coffee while reading Mein Kampf and stay away from cosmology.- 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

Hi Perdition, If I understand the question correctly, I believe the answer is found in Newton's law of universal gravitation.

quote:

---

Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses

---

So I believe the math is the same where:

• F is the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses,
• G is the gravitational constant,
• m1 is the mass of the first point mass,
• m2 is the mass of the second point mass, and
• r is the distance between the two point masses.

However, I don't think the physical phenomena will be the same.- 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

The other problem is the how and what would cause the Sun (and everything else) to revolve around an object of smaller density?We know from Newton that mass is the source of gravity, but special relativity says that mass is the sum of energy and linear momentum density, so all matter must be moving to curve spacetime. This is why we know the Earth is moving but also that the Sun is as well, thus creating a gravitational force.But in SO's geocentric model there is no explanation as to why anything revolves around anything else - big or small. It fails to explain even simply things like, why do we have a moon?It just seems to leave every single question unanswered. How would planets even form if mass density didn't curve spacetime? Why is there gravitational lensing? How does a star form? How do black holes form? What makes objects collide with planets, and other objects for that matter? - What he doesn't understand is that pointing out a few anomalies, or one or two people who disagree with certain specifics about relativity, doesn't change anything when we take the system as a whole.Small objects revolve around larger ones because space is curved, space is curved due to energy and momentum density, so we can't have curvature without motion. This explains, for the most part, the how and why smaller objects orbit larger ones, and we observe the planets acting according to predictions. Even if it was 100% wrong, any other thoery would still have to make predictions that match observation. Furthermore, any other theory would also have to explain what gravity is and how it works.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Wrong, Smooth. Gravity isn't a "thing" that does anything. It's the result of mass and energy curving spacetime. A photon, just like everything else, follows the nearest thing to a straight line in curved space, refered to as geodesic.When light follows curved space, say around a star, it produces an effect called gravitational lensing which proves that the space around the star is curved. This is an observed phenomenon. This observed phenomenon was predicted by Einstein's GR theory, proving, once again, how well GR functions to describe spacetime.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

In the link that Smooth is providing, the suns-path-diagram, click on the name of the person credited for this work.Clicking on, Allen Davis, leads you to a religious site that spouts hate. So, catholic scientist was right, this is a religious based argument. None of it is supported with evidence that has been peer-reviewed. It's pseudo-science garbage.If any of it were true it would be subjected to the scientific method. It hasn't been. It's garbage.- Oni

Shalom Smooth, Not so smooth anymore, eh? Religious based. You see, the gecentrism your hate group is advocating comes from a religious PoV. The site you cited clearly supports it.Ergo, you're shitty excuse for an argument has a religous BASE. The suns-path-diagram work has not been peer-reviewed. Find the peer-review and cite it. You can't, I tried, it doesn't exist beyond that one website you linked. It's pseudo-science garbage. Yes, they were. You're shitty sun-path-diagram psuedo-science bullshit, was not. That was the only thing I was refering to you schmuck.- 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

Shalom Smooth, The work that you yourself said was never published? Thus not peer-reviewed, thus pseudo-science bullshit once again. Think it is possible, sure. I once thought it was possible for a cow to jump over the moon, until I saw the evidence against that possibility.There is no aether producing gravity, and if your coming to that conclusion because of Teslas work, then you're believing non-reviewed pseudo-science bullshit.In fact, you can't even reference the actual work done by Tesla. None of it was published. None of it was reviewed by other physicist. None of it has been subjected to proper analysis by others in the field. Which makes it pseudo-science garbage, once again. Well, since you said please...Anyways, from your link:

quote:

---

This calculation yields a deflection angle that is just half as big as the value obtained from General Relativity.

​

This difference between the two calculations is nowadays encoded in a parameter called , where = 1, or (1+)/2 = 1, corresponds to the bending of light as predicted by General Relativity, while = 0, or (1+)/2 = 1/2, is the value for the Newtonian calculation. Actually, is just one out of a set of several parameters which are used in a framework called parametrised post-Newtonian formalism.

​

The results of these observations were made public at the meeting in London in November 1919 that made Einstein a scientific star: The measured deflection of light did fit to the Einstein value, while it was much less compatible with the Newtonian bending.

---

Einsteins prediction had a different deflection value. AND, the measured deflection, accordind to the link YOU cited, fit the Einstein value, while much less compatible with the Newtonian bending.However, the fact remains that spacetime is curved.Stick around, well give you the proper education, Smooth. - OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.