Relativity is wrong...

Please, oh please tell me you don't actually believe in the Geocentric model of the Universe. If you do, please tell me you aren't American.You realize that a Geocentric model needs to be incredibly complicated in order to account for everything that we observe just within our own Solar System.1) You have to account for the motion of the planets, Sun, and moon through the sky and the fact that their paths across the sky varies. I guess you introduce a spiral orbit.
2) Then your model has to address retrograde motion for all planets farther from the Sun than Earth.
3) Then you need to address the phases that Venus and Mercury go through like the Moon does.
4) You have to show what forces act on the orbits of everything else to make it spiral.
5) You have to show why the Earth doesn't wobble from all the gravitational forces acting upon it.
6) Your model will have to accurately predict the motion of the Sun, moon, and planets years in advance with relative precision (meaning your model has to be able to account for retrograde motion and Venetian and Mercurian phases, eclipses, etc).
7) Also explain to me, if the Earth is so special as to be the center of the Universe, why is there anything at all orbiting the Sun?

This is contrary to what Newton said. You know, one of the two guys credited with inventing Calculus. He was a pretty intelligent guy.Gravitation is universal. The effects of an object's gravity depends on the object's mass and distance.Take the tides. We know that the tides are mainly influenced by the moon's gravity. However, at certain times of the year, there occurs what are called spring tides and neap tides. Spring tides occur around the new and full moon phases when the Earth, Moon, and Sun are in syzygy. The effects of the Sun's gravity amplifies that of the moon and so we have higher than normal high tides and lower than normal low tides. During neap tides, when the Sun and Moon are at right angles when viewed from Earth, the tides are less severe because the Sun's gravity partially cancels out the Moon's effect. What does this mean?It means that your statement that gravitation is not universal is wrong. Depending on mass and distance, an object's gravity can have an effect on other objects in the Universe.I will grant you this - our knowledge of the Universe is incomplete. But just because a theory or law doesn't have all the answers doesn't mean that it is wrong. It just means that there might be a better theory or law, or an alternative explanation. Dark energy is hypothetical. That means that scientists think it might exist, and there is evidence for its existence, but don't know for certain.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

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. From this site, 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. Using trig, we can calculate, with a degree of error, the distance to the Sun. This site uses a similar methodology except uses Venus instead of the moon.Knowing the distance to the Sun, we can now calculate the size of the Sun using the method shown on this site. Taking two sheets of stiff paper, we make a pinhole in one and set that one in between the other white paper and the sun and set it far enough so that we can measure the image of the Sun on the white paper. We can then set up a simple ratio using the size of the Sun on the white paper over the distance of the pinhole paper to the white paper equaling the variable x over the known distance from Earth to the Sun. We have now calculated the size of the Sun without having to physical measure it. Isn't math fun! So easy, the Greeks could do it.I wanted to address your points on Cosmology previously, but I wasn't sure if it was off-topic, as the topic is why Relativity is wrong. But I want to ask something about your model of the 100 AU Universe with stars painted on the boundary, which is, how does your model account for stellar parallax? Using telescopes, we can observe, independently of those wicked scientists, that stars change their positions in the sky about their real position. The change is minute, undetectable by the naked eye, but if an 18th Century telescope can detect the parallax, I am willing to bet our modern hobby telescopes can too. So how does your model, which posits a stationary earth, support the observation of stellar parallax, which seemingly requires a moving earth?

Don't laugh at Alchemy - Chemistry has its roots in Alchemy. How do you think alchemists operated? They used various substances to try and create other substances. They kept diligent notes on their recipes and the effects of those recipes. Isn't that similar to how chemists operate? Except, of course, chemists understand the principles of Chemistry and how chemicals react. Your argument is that gravitation is not universal. You argue that the Sun's gravity does not affect the earth. I have shown that it does. If you disagree, then explain to me how your model can predict spring and neap tides. I wouldn't be so stupid as to ignore what I can see. And scientists don't just take a single measurement. They repeat an experiment over and over in different ways trying to disprove a hypothesis. So for instance, when I am at the beach and look out to the sea, I can detect a slight curvature of the horizon. From that observation alone I can hypothesize that the Earth is not flat. I would then perform various experiments to try and disprove my hypothesis. Since my observation on the beach says the curvature is detectable only from great distance, I know a meter long ruler and placing it on the ground is not good enough. So I have to think of other methods to test my theory. Uh-huh. You're so smart, SO, so tell me: what is your proposed theory of gravitation and how does it predict events in your 100 AU Universe? A scientific theory is a theory because of its predictive power. When the astronauts went to the moon, they did experiments with gravity, and lo and behold, the Theory of universal gravitation worked on the moon as predicted! So what predictive power does your model have? On the contrary, according to Wiki

quote:

---

A hypothesis (from Greek ὑπόθεσις [iˈpoθesis]; plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. The term derives from the Greek, hypotithenai meaning "to put under" or "to suppose." For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

---

A hypothesis is an proposed explanation but one which is testable. As far as I know, the existence of dark energy is not testable at this current time which is why it is still hypothetical despite the fact that it can account for many observed phenomena. Just because a hypothesis can account for observed phenomena doesn't promote it to a theory. A hypothesis needs to be testable and tested before it can be called a theory.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

Variations in distances do not matter unless those variations are widely different. Even still, we can work based on the average distance of the Earth to the Sun. We can figure that out by making those measurements at various points throughout the year. Problem solved. And seriously, are you arguing that the speed of orbits changes?! What, does it slow down, then speed up, then slow down again? And what does the changing speed of an orbit have to do with figuring out distances? If a car circles around me on a track but varies the speed at which it travels around the track, does that mean I can't figure out my distance to the car or the size of the car? Is that what you seriously are arguing? You know, I'm beginning to see cavediver's point. You postulate an idea but you can't show me how this idea works. What causes this shell to wobble? What causes this sphere to rotate? How does this wobble cause everything else to wobble, but not the earth? How is a rotating shell causing the orbits of everything else but not causing the earth to rotate? I don't laugh at ideas that are discredited by modern science. I just don't believe in them. I don't dismiss an idea out of hand simply because there is no evidence for it. But when science shows me evidence, that is the predictions agree with the theories, then I can't simply close my eyes and ignore them can I? I would be doing God an extreme disservice by ignoring the beautiful simplicity upon which our Universe is constructed. And I mean simplicity as compared to other ideas I have heard, like a flat earth or a geocentric Universe. No, I'm sorry, but I didn't show that the positions of the Earth, Sun, and Moon affect the Earth's gravity. I SHOWED HOW THE POSITIONS OF THE EARTH, SUN AND MOON AND THE GRAVITY OF THE SUN AND MOON AFFECT THE TIDES ON EARTH. Read a bit more carefully. And I didn't talk about the seasons. I asked about the SPRING TIDES and NEAP TIDES. Read that post again. I asked how your model explains the Spring Tides and Neap Tides if gravitation is not universal. No, I told you that astronauts went to the moon and performed gravity experiments there. If gravitation were not universal, then the effects of gravity on the moon would have been much different than what was predicted. And since scientists have sent rovers to Mars, we can also see that gravitation works the same on Mars as it does on Earth. Dark matter was hypothesized because galaxies in the Coma cluster did not have enough observable mass to keep them together since the motions of the galaxies were much too fast for the gravity of the observable mass to keep the cluster together. What Fritz Zwicky hypothesized was that there was an unseen matter adding mass and gravity to keep the cluster together. And this is what scientists are working on now, trying to detect dark matter. But that's the thing, dark matter is testable. If it turns out that dark matter doesn't exist, scientists are willing to test other hypotheses that are testable. First off, what is the aether? Describe it to me. Tell me how can I test for the aether. Secondly, according to Tesla, in his Dynamic Theory of Gravity, a man can

quote:

---

-Precipitate matter from the ether
-Create whatever he wants with the matter and energy derived
-Alter the earth's size
-Control earth's seasons (weather control)
-Guide earth's path through the Universe, like a space ship
-Cause the collisions of planets to produce new suns and stars, heat, and light
-Originate and develop life in infinite forms

---

http://netowne.com/technology/important/
Sounds like Tesla's theory can make someone God. Truly, I would love to have this theory be true if it meant that I could change the Earth's size, guide its path, or even originate and develop life in infinite forms. That would be fantastic, but I imagine it would be a crisis for you. Also you say Tesla argued that radioactivity is caused by cosmic rays. The link you had said the cause was unknown for why there were periodic fluctuations in the decay rates for those two elements. It mentioned Earth-Sun distance as one correlation, but nothing about cosmic rays. So how does that link support your argument? Excuse me, I said no such thing. First I said dark energy is hypothetical Message 512. Then I explained what a hypothesis was Message 519. I never said it was a theory without evidence, so don't put words into my mouth. I said it was a hypothetical form of energy. I also said a hypothesis is a proposed explanation that is testable. Honestly, do you actually read the arguments made or just skim them over using your own mind to fill in the gaps?

He doesn't believe in other stars because no has been to them, seen them, and touched them. He believes we live inside an immense Dyson Sphere and the stars are just painted dots on the wall.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

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. 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.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?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? 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.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. 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. And how do you know what Tesla said? Were you there? Show me what Tesla says. Show me this competing theory that Tesla produced.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.Otherwise, you have given me no reason to believe you.

Congratulations, you just broke my brain; I can't believe what I read in Message 543 and Message 544. My head hurts now. I'll address your other points, but since the answer to your first point I had posted earlier in Message 518, I'll just copy and paste it for you to see again. 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. Using trig, we can calculate, with a degree of error, the distance to the Sun.As you can see, it is not impossible. All it requires is Trigonometry, one angle, and one distance. Do this over the course of the year, and you have a good working average distance of Earth to Sun.I'll address your other points later.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts..." - Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

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? 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? Your answer is: 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. 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.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. 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. 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. 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.SO, you have made it clear that you aren't interested in an honest debate. You have made assertions and claims with nothing to back up those claims. Your idea lacks predictive power, and relies on a rotating, pulling, pushing, polka-dotted, and god knows what else sphere. 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. 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.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.

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts..." - Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole