Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Relativity is wrong...
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 18 of 633 (516818)
07-27-2009 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Smooth Operator
07-27-2009 3:31 PM


The predicted value was 237 shifts out of 1000, +/- 5 shifts of error . The measured value was 230.
Their prediction was wrong. They predicted a range from 232 to 242. It fell outside of that range. So their model, their prediction, and their margin of error were not what they measured. That means their idea was wrong. It came close, but close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-27-2009 3:31 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-27-2009 3:49 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 20 of 633 (516826)
07-27-2009 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Smooth Operator
07-27-2009 3:49 PM


Hmm, I used your argument, and baed my reply off your argument. if you're saying that your argument is not what the article is saying, then why did you bother linking the article? I'm not here to debate an article, I'm here to debate you. If you can't say, in your own words, what the article is saying, then again, I have no need to read the article since you obviously don't understand it yourself.
So, if you're not going to debate in good faith, you're the one who can go away. I've been here far longer than you, I know how to debate on a forum, and I know, without having the understanding of this topic of some of our other posters, that you're full of shit and are unable to understand when someone explains to you, in great detail, where you're wrong, why you're wrong, and how you're using the incorrect data in an incorrect way to come to incorrect conclusions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-27-2009 3:49 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-27-2009 4:12 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 22 of 633 (516839)
07-27-2009 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Smooth Operator
07-27-2009 4:12 PM


Where exactly did I use numbers like 232 and 242? Nowhere!
You said, and I quote:
quote:
The predicted value was 237 shifts out of 1000, +/- 5 shifts of error .
So, I did a little elementary math, forgive me if I go a little too quickly. 237 is the predicted number, right? It has an error of plus (addition) or minus (subtraction) 5, right? So, if we take 237 and ADD 5, what do we get? That's right class, 242.
Now, and this is a little trickier, if we take 237 and SUBTRACT 5, we get? Right again, very good class. We get 232.
So, if we see 230, does that fall within the predicted range of 232-242? Wow, class, you're batting 1000. You're right, it doesn't!
So, does this mean the prediction was a good one or a bad one?
Bad!! Very good class. Time for cookies and a nap.
You are the one who is inventing numbers out of thin air, not me. Therefore, take your crap, and get the hell off my topic.
If these numbers are out of thin air, you're the master inventor, I'm merely a lowly apprentice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-27-2009 4:12 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-27-2009 4:55 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied
 Message 24 by Smooth Operator, posted 07-27-2009 5:03 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 77 of 633 (517212)
07-30-2009 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by DevilsAdvocate
07-29-2009 8:25 PM


Just for shits and giggles let's suppose the universe did revolve around the Earth.
Well, in the best Relativity fashion, doesn't it depend on your reference frame? If the entire universe were rotating around the Earth, and it was sitting perfectly still, wouldn't the math and all the phenomena be exactly the same? Isn't the Earth going around the sun, the sun going around the galactic center, and everything else moving just based on a reference frame outside of the solar system?
Or am I completely misunderstanding parts of relativity here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-29-2009 8:25 PM DevilsAdvocate has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Huntard, posted 07-30-2009 10:56 AM Perdition has replied
 Message 85 by onifre, posted 07-30-2009 1:08 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 81 of 633 (517225)
07-30-2009 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Huntard
07-30-2009 10:56 AM


Yes. For it is relativity that states that larger masses curve spacetime more than smaller masses. So, the sun will curve spacetime more than earth, and so the earth orbits the sun.
I know that, but from a theoretical framepoint, if the sun's larger "spacetime dimple" were to be assumed to be moving around Earth's "spacetime dimple", and everything else were still moving around the sun, would the equations (despite maybe being a little more complex) come to different solutions? I agree the earth moves around the sun, but imagine a wheel spinning around the hub. If, as a mental exercise, you held a point of the wheel in a static position, then rotated, the hub, the bike, the garage, the Earth, and the universe around that one point, wouldn't you still come to the same solutions to equations about the movement of things? It's simpler to just say the wheel is spinning around the hub, but aside from the simpler math, is there any objective reason to say one over the other?
Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Huntard, posted 07-30-2009 10:56 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Huntard, posted 07-30-2009 1:21 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 87 of 633 (517242)
07-30-2009 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Huntard
07-30-2009 1:21 PM


Yes. For then you would have to explain why in ALL other instances, things would orbit more massive things, EXCEPT in the case of the Earth. I don't think that can be explained with math (I might be wrong thoug, I'm no math wiz)
Very true. It would require special pleading to argue that this is actually how things are, but mathematically, and as a thought experiment, it seems like there would be little way to dofferentiate between one scenaro and the other, with the exception that the math would be more complex in my thought experiment universe.
It seemed an interesting idea considering the geocentrism of our new friend. If you can argue why this best-case (IMHO) scenario for geo-centrism doesn't hold much water, then I would think SO has nothing much to come back with other than, "but I don't want to be logical or rational, I like my irrational prejudices!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Huntard, posted 07-30-2009 1:21 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by slevesque, posted 07-31-2009 1:52 AM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 94 of 633 (517251)
07-30-2009 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by New Cat's Eye
07-30-2009 2:28 PM


Re: Unbelievable!
The planets seeming to reverse course during their orbits is called retrograde motion, and yeah, it occurs because we catch up to them in our orbit compared to theirs (or they catch up to us, if they're closer to the sun than we are.)
The ancients noticed this and conceived of the idea of epicycles. These were essentially loops on which the planets turned while also going around the Earth.
Parralax is the apparant motion of the stars as we move around the sun. For instance, on side of the sun, we can see Orion, but on the other side of the sun, we can't. Parralax can be used to determine the distance to stars, since can measure the angle of difference between their apparent location, and we know the baseline of the triangle, which is the diameter of the Earth's orbit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-30-2009 2:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-30-2009 3:04 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 96 of 633 (517256)
07-30-2009 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by New Cat's Eye
07-30-2009 3:04 PM


Re: Unbelievable!
Impossible if the Earth is stationary, not based on an assumption, and yet directly observable.
It should fit SO's criteria and prove the Earth is in motion.
I'm curious how he'll weasel his way out of this one. Probably by not responding at all :-\
Well, technically, it's not impossible just highly unlikely. As I said, the ancients "solved" the problem with ever more complex sets of epicycles upon epicycles. The problem comes in trying to explain how those epicycles work now that we know the planets aren't just lights on the dome of the sky, but are rather large bodies flying through space under the laws of physics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-30-2009 3:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-30-2009 3:21 PM Perdition has replied
 Message 101 by onifre, posted 07-30-2009 6:16 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


(1)
Message 98 of 633 (517260)
07-30-2009 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by New Cat's Eye
07-30-2009 3:21 PM


Re: Unbelievable!
I guess SO will have to argue that the stars aren't really big fireballs really far away in space and are just these little lights in the firmament that move around.
Well, that is how they look. And as anyone over the age of 2 knows, everything is exactly how it appears at first glance.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-30-2009 3:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-30-2009 4:01 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 434 of 633 (523128)
09-08-2009 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 425 by Smooth Operator
09-06-2009 9:00 AM


Re: Try Again....
The problem with heliocentrists is that they assume movement. That is their starting assumption. But the problem is, they have no logical reson for this. Yes, you could also assume that you are actually moving in a train that you do not feel any movement, but you have no real reason for doing so.
Nope. Geocentrism was the starting point assumption. It was seen as the most logical assumption based on exactly what you said: we don't feel movement. The problems became the fact that we started collecting observations that made the geocentric model untenable. Sure, you can finagle things to make it come out, but the math gets very complicated, convoluted, and begs the question, "Why would nature be so grossly complex and arbitrary here?"
Copernicus came along and, by the relatively large conceptual leap of putting the sun at the center, made the math a lot easier, made the complexity come way down, and made the universe seem far less arbitrary. Observations continued, and it became rather obvious that the sun wasn't the center of everything afterall, it was becoming more complex and unnecessarily arbitrary as we looked farther and farther out. It was then discovered, through a less revolutionary leap, that the sun was also moving through space around the center of our galaxy and that there are many such galaxies out there that are moving in various directions. Finally, along came a guy named Einstein who basically said that there is no "special place" in the galaxy. Making the arbitrariness that had plagued previous models completely obsolete.
So, the starting assumption, especially when you look at a newborn child, up through their early school years, is that the Earth stays put and the sun rises. We then make observations that give rise to doubts about that simplistic idea when it becomes obvious that what we thought was simple turns out to be almost impossible to work out when we take into account all the observations made over the course of centuries.
What you're advocating is, let's either dismiss those observations as misinterpreted, or go back to an unnecessarily complex mathematical model of the universe that retains our special place without any reason to do so.
The fact remains, we can model the Universe with any point as an arbitrary center, but picking points thusly makes the math complex and convoluted. When we remove that bias, the math falls into place elegantly and in a relatively simple manner. Considering all that, doesn't it make sense to at least act as if there is no center, if only to make mathematicians' lives easier? Why are you so biased against mathematicians that you would want them to spend days working on a trajectory that assumes the Earth is the center when they can hammer one out before lunch if we assume the sun is the center of the solar system?
Imagine if you were in a train. But this train had no windows. If the train was moving, how would you know? You basicly feel no motion, so you do not know if you are moving or not. But you really want to find out if you are moving or not. So, what is your starting logical assumption? Well, obviously, if you don't feel any movement, you will assume for starters, that you are not moving. Right?
So, the train moves, you don't feel movement, and you have no way of knowing. You then exit the train and you are in a completely different place from where ypou started. You have three possiblilities:
1) The train moved, despite your inner ear being fooled by incredibly smooth movement and no outside references.
2) The Earth moved under the train, all the animals, plants, people, stars and everything decided for no real reason that they wanted to move under you in random and different directions.
3) The Earth completely rearranged itself, not moving per se, but just reshaping.
You're advocating for number 2, when the easiest assumption based on the evidence is 1.
Your example also falls apart when we give the options of windows. Since we can see out into the universe, we can see things moving. We see the telegraph poles flying past, the tracks sliding under us. and the more distant objects moving slower, but still noticably, past the window.
We're still left with the top two options above, the third one being provisionally ruled out by the apparant motion.
Again, you're advocating for number 2, despite being able to notice that the people who appear to be flying past aren't looking bewildered, aren't losing their balance, and are, in fact, moving as if they are watching you move past them. Again, the parsimonious answer is that you were the one moving, despite not being able to feel it, and the fact that you can come up with complex mathematical formulae that will work out with you not moving, and some sort of story about the people not noticing.
Edited by Perdition, : Added second quote from SO and response.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 425 by Smooth Operator, posted 09-06-2009 9:00 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by Smooth Operator, posted 09-09-2009 3:44 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 446 of 633 (523450)
09-10-2009 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by Smooth Operator
09-09-2009 3:44 PM


Re: Try Again....
And also, when I said the starting logical assumption, I meant now, and today, for heliocentrists, it is that the world is actually moving.
And that's where I disagree with you. Ask a two year old if the Earth moves or the sun does. I would bet, with very few exceptions, the kid will say the sun moves. So, for everyone, the starting assumption is that the sun moves, as it appears to. We learn, though, that appearances can be deceiving. The first step in that direction comes when we learn object permanence, and continues through the rest of our lives as we get fooled by optical illusions, conclusions jumped to in haste, and even well-spun falsehoods.
Where is the evidence that the Sun is actually moving and orbiting anythin else than Earth?
Well, we can see the motion of the galaxy we're in, and calculate the speed of it's rotation and its center of rotation, and we can see that our sun is staying relatively in the same spot with relation to the other stars in our galactic neighborhood, so I guess the assumption is that if object A is moving around something else, and we're staying with object A, then we're moving too. I know this is high level thinking, but I hope you can stay with me here.
How do you know other galaxies are orbiting anything else, than what we see them orbiting, and that is Earth.
Well, let's see. We measure the redshift of stars in other galaxies. The stars on one side appear to be moving toward us, and the stars on the other side appear to be moving away from us. This implies a rotational motion. That one's easy.
And as for Einstein, he was wrong. The only reason he developed the theory of relativity was because the MM experiment showed that the Earth is not moving. Not becasue it came naturally to him.
Regardless of how he came up with the theory, it works exeptionally well to be "wrong." We base all of our science in space and physics off his theory, and we end up with the correct answers...pretty good for a wrong shot in the dark, huh?
Also if you are going to talk about the simplicity. There is no dark matter, dark energy, black holes, extremely big universe, and all them unobservable stuff in the geocentric model. All this are just ad hoc assumptions which were never observed, yet are needed to make the acentric universe work.
Dark matter and dark energy I'll grant you, we only see their effects, we don't see them directly, but there has to be "something" causing those effects. Black holes we can see indirectly, since there are big drain in space shooting out large amounts of energy along a rotational axis...in other words, black holes. The big universe is exactly what we see, how does your irrational geocentric model deal with the vast distances observed and calculated idrectly using geometry, the correlation between these direct calculations and redshift/luminosity, and the extrapolation that redshift/luminosity for certain objects doesn't change based on location. You now have to account for an eccentric motion of a massive sun, the precariously balanced forces holding the earth at the center without pushing everything else in the center despite the fact that the mass on one side of the earth noticeably changes in relation to the other side, and now why things are drastically different in different areas in order to keep the universe small. You've got a lot of ad hoc assumptions and explanations yourself.
I know that for a child that is the logical starting assumption, but not for people who do believe that the Earth is moving in the first place.
Find me one person who believes the Earth is moving "in the first place" and not someone who has been taught it based on evidence.
You are just making assertations. I'm not advocating that. You are the one who has a MUCH more convulated and complex model. There are no observations a geocentric model can't explain.
And there are no observations a Venus-centric model or a Mars-centric or an Alpha Centauri-centric model can't explain either. The problem comes in trying to figure out which model is more likely and has the fewest assumptions about it. The acentric model (as you call it) has the fewest assumptions. It has smooth motions of straight lines unless acted on by an outside force, and then smooth arcs (unless actual impact happens). You have wacky motions with no apparent cause.
All the other things you bring up are not assumptions, they are consequences or possible solutions to observed phenomena. Your model has the exact same thing, there is an observed phenomenon and you have to come up with an explanation for it. The thing is, you haven't provided any for us, you've only asserted "they exist and if we want to know, here are a bunch of links that might show you if you want to take a long time filtering through it all, because I obviously haven't."
You forgot that we can't "exit the train" in our case. Do you, or do you not understand that? The only way to really know what is moving is to exit the universe. We can't do that.
Is your train the Earth? If so, we can and do exit the Earth, and we can see outside. If the train is the universe, then I'm not claiming the universe is moving, only that it's expanding. This is assumed because I see the wall of the train getting farther away.
You are again blind to your assumption. There are no evidence that show the Earth is moving. How many times do I have to say that? All the evidence you have is INTERPRETATION from the starting assumption that the Earth is actually moving! Can you not understand that? Everything we observe can be explained with both acentric and geocentric model. Evidence is the same for everyone.
The evidence is more easily explained by my model and requires far fewer assumptions, regardless of what you claim. You have assumptions up the wazoo that you're apparently not seeing, and for which there is no evidence. I agree that we can model the universe and come up with explanations using both models...as well as with any other model we could conceive of. The question comes down to logic, simplicity and ease of use.
But in your example, we already know we are moving. We can't know that in case of the Earth, because we would have to exit the universe to be sure!
That's not true. Do you have to leave the Earth to see if a train is moving or can you use the features of the Earth to see it? We can use the features of the universe we are in to see our movement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Smooth Operator, posted 09-09-2009 3:44 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by Smooth Operator, posted 09-14-2009 3:40 PM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 454 of 633 (524183)
09-14-2009 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by Smooth Operator
09-14-2009 3:40 PM


Re: Try Again....
I specifically said, that for heliocentrists/acentrists/relativists, not kids, the starting assumption is that the Earth is moving.
And I told you that it wasn't a "starting assumption." It is an assumption used because it has been demonstrated to their level of acceptance. It has obviously not been explained to your level, but you seem to have an impossibly high level requirement.
Did they give you any evidence in primary school when they told you the Earth is moving, or did they jsut say that that's how it is? No, they didn't.
Maybe in first grade, they just taught us that it was that way without backing it up, but yes, in primary school, I was taught the reasoning behind it at some point...probably somewhere around 3rd grade.
Again, your starting assumption has led you to a wrong path. We are not a part of any galaxy. You do not know that we are, you only believe we are. And since you see everything around you moving, and you believe we are part of it, than guess what, your starting assumption leads you to believe that we are actually moving.
Prove it's a wrong path. I can SEE the Milky Way Galaxy. I can use a telescope to see other galaxies. I can figure out what it would look like were I inside those other galaxies...guess what it would look like. You guessed it, it would look exactly as it looks when we look at the Milky Way.
Except that redshift does not show the speed of recession. It's an assumption.
It is a prediction that can be tested. It has been tested. It has been shown to be accurate. It is now up to you to show why the data is wrong. Just claiming something as an assumption will not save your argument. Especially when the things you claim are "just assumptions" have been tested and have been shown to be accurate. You now have to make evidence based arguments that show a reason to doubt the empirical evidence gathered.
If you look at the work of Halton Arp, you will see that he made pictures of two galaxies who are phisicaly touching each otehr. They are conected to each other. Yet the redshif measurements show that they are millions of miles apart, and not only that, but that they are going away from each other at different speeds.
I skimmed that link. I see a lot of the word "appears" and as we all know, appearances can be deceiving. Have you never seen things look like they were touching but were actually quite different distances away? it's a well known optical illusion that was exploited to great effect in the Lord of the Rings movies...you didn't think they really used Hobbits did you? (Their unions are too demanding, asking for time off for foot combing and all.) His "evidence" is circumstantial and very unconvincing, but since I am not a cosmologist, I can't directly refute it...as I assume most of the people who read this and believe it are not. So, why don't we see if a cosmologist can explain it. I'm sure I could come up with a convincing argument that sounds like I'm proving my point, but see, I try to let experts do that who may actually be approaching the truth.
I haven't seen anything good that came from that theory. Can you name anything?
GPS perhaps?
I'm sorry but no. We do not see their effects. Simply becasue there are no effects to observe. Your model is an assumption based on an assumption that is again, based on an assumption. The assumption of expanding universe. Sorry, it's based on the assumption that redshift shows the recession speed. It doesn't.
Well, let's see...gravitational lensing is an effect, no? It is caused by a large mass affecting the path of light. It can be observed that light gets perturbed by a certain degree based on mass. The mass of the object doing the perturbation can then be calculated. The calculation comes out very different from the mass obtained when looking just at the visible matter, thus there is probably some form of non visible matter as well. This matter, being nonvisible to light based detection would therefore be...dark, maybe? There is also the fact that we can detect the motion of stars around their respective galactic centers, and using a similar mass calculation, we come to...the exact same conclusion. So, now you not only have to explain the phenomena seen, you also have to come up with a reaosn that two different calculations can come to the exact same answer if the assumptions for both are incorrect.
No. There are no black holes. Nobody saw a black hole. If you noticed a large amount of energy in outer space, that is fine. But it's not a black hole untill you know it is.
What would you call an area where mass is spiraling around a black center with energetic jets shooting out? Maybe a "Big Drain"? The scientists decided to call them black holes, it's a catchy name. But beyond that...what do you propose that would make black holes not form? We predicted their existence and appearance based on GR, and using that prediction, we found exactly what we predicted. Chalk another one up for the good guys.
I told you already. All those things are made to be correlated. Redshift does not show recession speed or distance. It's an assumption.
I don't know what you mean by "made to be correlated." They're independent means of verification. Or are you assuming that it's a grand conspiracy that people who use the luminosity of supernovae and stable star types, which have a very predictable light signature, and others who use redshift, and who find that the numbers come to the same conclusion are fudging their numbers to make them fit?
Every single person in the world. All have been thaught it moves, but not based on evidence. They took it for granted.
I was taught based on evidence...yes, I was taught it moved before I was shown the evidence, but I was shown the evidence as soon as I had the scientific underpinning to understand the evidence...this occurred around grade 3, as I said above. If you never got taught the evidence, perhaps you should not have dropped out of second grade.
What wacky motions are you talkign about? You are the one who has billions of stars and a gigantic universe. Your model has more assumption.
Well, let's see. You have a sun moving in a spiral around the planet, moving up and down and closer and farther, for no apparent reason other than to fool us...not to mention, not quite explaining why it is summer in the northern hemisphere when it is winter in the southern hemisphere if the seasons are caused by the closeness of the sun. You have everything moving around us, requiring epicycles upon epicycles, again, for no apparent reason other than to place the earth at the center for no reason whatsoever. You also have the Earth not moving despite being acted on by forces from every side that are not held constant or equal. You have more massive objects circling less massive objects, you have the entire fields of astronomy, physics, chemistry, and optics acting in some grand conspiracy to hide the fact that these wacky motions are, in fact, the way things actually are, again for no apparent reason, and you have, as the only form of proof, math, which as we have said, and which you have not refuted, can be used to "prove" a Mars-centric universe, a Venus-centric universe, a helio-centric universe, a Perdition-centric universe, a Smooth Operator-centric universe, or a chess pawn centered universe.
You accept an earth-centric universe and a small universe because it appeals to you on some visceral level, and you claim its not a religous one...I'm willing to accept that its not religiously motivated, but I can't understand what your reasoning is. WHY would the Earth be the center. What logical reason does the universe have to be centered around our planet.
I'll take a massive universe with billions of stars above math with no grounding and physics, optics, chemistry, and astronomy with no logic behind them any day. You keep on harping your crazy theory all you want, there's no evidence except for simplisitc "appearance" based arguments and math, which can be used to "prove" anything under the sun.
Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by Smooth Operator, posted 09-14-2009 3:40 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by Smooth Operator, posted 09-20-2009 3:44 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 485 of 633 (525968)
09-25-2009 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 484 by greyseal
09-25-2009 7:40 AM


I tol'em. buggerit, millenium hand and shrimp I tol'em we can't stay here, this is BAT COUNTRY!
I love Discworld quotes, bring more on! ;-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 484 by greyseal, posted 09-25-2009 7:40 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 487 by greyseal, posted 09-25-2009 11:43 AM Perdition has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 488 of 633 (526012)
09-25-2009 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 487 by greyseal
09-25-2009 11:43 AM


Re: so near yet so far!
No clue on those, sorry.
Edited by Perdition, : smily

This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by greyseal, posted 09-25-2009 11:43 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by greyseal, posted 09-25-2009 2:38 PM Perdition has seen this message but not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 491 of 633 (526586)
09-28-2009 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 490 by Smooth Operator
09-28-2009 11:48 AM


But what you have to account for is WHY is Mars following the sun? Is the sun the dominant gravity generator in your model? If so, why doesn't the movement of the sun perturb Earth's exalted position? If it's not and Earth is, why doesn't Mars just orbit the Earth rather than being pulled around by a smaller mass object?
It's questions like these that a robust theory would need to answer, and which you have failed to explain other than, "It's a rotating shell that creates forces that counteract gravity by some means I'm not sure of, and the rotating shell doesn't cause the Earth to spin because I say so..."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 490 by Smooth Operator, posted 09-28-2009 11:48 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 496 by Smooth Operator, posted 09-30-2009 4:37 PM Perdition has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024