Relativity is wrong...

quote:

---

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.

---

Again, you are wrong. Do you have trouble reading or something? I specifically said, that for heliocentrists/acentrists/relativists, not kids, the starting assumption is that the Earth is moving. People are not born geocentrists or heliocentrists. It's what we learn during our lives that makes us what we are. And for a person who believes the Earth is moving, he believes it as his starting assumption. 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. They just told you it's like that. Thereforer your belief is moving Earth is based on an assumption, not evidence.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Except that redshift does not show the speed of recession. It's an assumption.

quote:

---

Dr. Arp has shown in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" that there is a physical connection between the barred spiral galaxy NGC 4319 and the quasar like object Markarian 205. This connection is between two objects that have vastly different redshift values. Mainstream astronomers deny
the existence of this physical link. They claim these two objects are not close together - they are 'coincidentally aligned'.

---

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htmIf 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.

quote:

---

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?

---

I haven't seen anything good that came from that theory. Can you name anything?

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.Not only that, but if you look at the work of Stephen Crothers, you will see, that the original paper that was supposed to explain the formation of black holes, doesn't do that. It actually prohibits them. He says that black holes, big bang and expansion of the universe is not consistent with General Relativity. Stephen J. Crothers

quote:

---

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 told you already. All those things are made to be correlated. Redshift does not show recession speed or distance. It's an assumption.

quote:

---

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.

---

Every single person in the world. All have been thaught it moves, but not based on evidence. They took it for granted.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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."

---

Show me one observation I did nt provide evidence for. On the other side dark energy is an assumption. It is not a consequence of General Relativity. Even if it was. You have to assume it exists.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, you don't. You see the redshift from a gaalxy,a dn you ASSUME, that this redshift is showing you the recession speed. Which is not.

quote:

---

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.

---

Start counting them. I want you to count how many assumptions there are in geocentric model. Than I will do the same with your model, and we shall se who has less assumptions.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, we can't because if the universe itself is rotating than you still wouldn't know which oen is actually moving. You pretty much have to leave the universe to know that.

quote:

---

If you think that this magically provides a solution to all your problems with regard to maintaining equilibrium despite multiple continually changing forces acting on the Earth then you are wrong. If you think this explains why the Earth sits resolutely at the centre of your imaginary universe unmoved by any of these forces then you are also wrong.

---

Why not? If the motion of the shell exerts enough power to keep the Earth in hte center, than why should the Earth move? Other planets simply don't have enough gravitational pull to move the Earth.

quote:

---

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.

---

If that was true than we would not be having this conversation. Therefore, you are wrong. If you were right. You would have simply give me evidence that the Earth was moving, which I wouldn not be able to explain from the geocentric model, and that would be that. But you have not done so.

quote:

---

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.

---

Oh, really? That's great. Well than, tell us, what did they show you as evidence that the Earth is moving?

quote:

---

Prove it's a wrong path.

---

Prove that there are no invisible pink unicorns! I'm not supposed to prove you wrong. You are supposed to show evidence you are right...

quote:

---

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.

---

You can figure that out? Okay, than again, tell us, how can you figure that out? Have you ever been to anothere galaxy? I think not. So tell us, how do you figure out, how everything has to look if you actually were inside a galaxy.

quote:

---

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.

---

I have shown you Arp's work. On the other hand, where has redshift been tested? How has it been tested? Did somebody actually leave Earth and go to another galaxy and actually, observe another galaxy move away from Earth?

quote:

---

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.

---

Yeah, it could be that they are just touching. And it also could be that redshift just seems that it indicates recession speed. So if we are not sure about Arp's interpretation, how can we be sure about your interpretation of the redshift?

quote:

---

GPS perhaps?

---

Nope. GPS is calibrated by the Sagnac effect, not relativity. The relativists like to say that relativity explains this effect, but it does not.

quote:

---

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?

---

The part where you did your equation is what led you to a false conclusion. How do you know your equations are right? Not only that, how do you know that it is the mass itself that is causing the bending?

quote:

---

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.

---

Actually we can't. Since we do not know how large, or how far away the stars are. We have no good way of telling that. And no, there is nothing strange to explain here. You used the same wrong assumption for two different calculations,a nd got two similary wrong results. The more your assumption is wrong, the more your results will be similary wrong.

quote:

---

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.

---

But nobody ever saw that! Never, ever. All we have "observed" are radio signals from outer space. We have no real idea what they are. How do you know the mass is spiraling around the "dark" center? Where has this been observed?

quote:

---

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?

---

No, what I'm saying is that people base their models on the already existing theories. And they pick the models they will use that best fit the theory. For an example. They way we measure the distance to the stars are made to be correlated with the method called stellar parallax. And this method is simply based on the assumption that the Earth is orbiting the Sun. And that the observed parallax is caused by Earth's movement.

quote:

---

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.

---

And again, I will ask you, what is the evidene you were shown? This is the second time already you said you were shown evidence but you did not say what exactly that was.

quote:

---

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.

---

I see nothing wacky int hat movement since the Moon is doing the same thing when it is orbiting the Earth. And the seasons are also caused by Sun's vertical position, not just it's distance from the Earth.

quote:

---

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.

---

No. Fir the billionth time. There are no epicycles in the Tychonic model. Get used to it.

quote:

---

You also have the Earth not moving despite being acted on by forces from every side that are not held constant or equal.

---

Simply becasue the rotation of the shell is like a sink. Imagine a big plate that was the deepest in the middle. If you put the object in the middle, you would not be able to move it with a weak force. That is why the Earth is not moving. It is in the middle of this sphere where it's forces are pushing it from all sides, so that it can not move.

quote:

---

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...

---

1.) The Sun could also be smaller than the Earth. There is no reason why it wouldn't be. Nobody knows for sure.2.) No, there is no conspiracy here. All methods are simply based on previous ones and are made so they correlate on the first one.3.) No, It is you who is using relativistic math not me.

quote:

---

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.

---

Maybe because it was designed like that. Do you not think Earth is special? I didn't. But now I do. Just look at it, there is no other planet like ours. Nobody found any planet suitable for life. Not only that, but there has never, ever been found a planet that had any traces of life. Yet there are millions of life forms right here on Earth. From what we know today, yes, the Earth is special.

quote:

---

Why not? well because it doesn't even offer an answer as to how the Earth is kept in a stationary position at the centre of the universe immune from all of the other forces acting upon it. Why do you think this is even a possibility?

---

If you had a ball in a middle of a plate where the middle is the deepest part of the plate, you would not be able to move the ball if you used a weak force. The saem goes for the Earth. All other forces are to weak to move it.

quote:

---

Newtons second law and Netwon's law of gravitation are against you (not even to mention that the Lense-Thirring efect is a GR effect that relies on relativity being true)

---

Wrong on both parts. Newton's laws are fine with my theory. As for the LT effect. Not it is a Machian effect. And Einstein simply infused Machian ideas into his theory of relativity. This is not evidence for relativity, but for Machian physics. Theory of relativity is simply trying to give an explanation why this happens.

quote:

---

Explain this: how in a geocentric universe in which the Sun rotates around the Earth that the following can occur on both planets.

---

This is too simple. The Sun is spiraling around the Earth and going up and down. And since the picture taken from Mars is taken in a different time scale, you have a different effect. And since Mars is following Sun's movement, it to is also spiraling. And that is why we would not observe the same effect on Mars.

quote:

---

I will focus on this because it is simply a mathematical statement. That is that black holes and cosmic expansion do not follow from General Relativity. This is provably incorrect. Hawking and Penrose published a series of papers in the 1970s containing theorems which showed in a wide variety of situations singularities are a generic feature, for example in realistic gravitational collapse and in cosmological models. In fact in a gigantic monograph, due to Demetrios Christodoulou, it was recently shown (2008) that singularities will form in completely realistic situations with no assumptions.
In other words black holes are completely consistent with General Relativity and anybody who says otherwise can mathematically be shown to be talking a load of arse.

---

This would all be fine and well if it was not based on Schwartzschild solution which does not calim to show how black holes form. Yet it is used for exactly that.Anyway, explain how is a universe which is supposed to be expanding, meaning it is not infinite, also supposed to have only relative motion. Relative motion means there is are no absolutes and there are no bounds to the universe. But expansion presupposes a finite and bounded universe. Since you can't expand something that is not finite. Therefore Big bang and relativity are not compatible.

quote:

---

So describe to me the source of this force that is ever changing in both magnitude and direction such that it always counters the competing gravitational forces acting on the Earth? Because the Lense-Thirring effect most certainly does not claim to do that.

---

It's simply a force that pushes everything towards the center. The LT effect is here to show us that forces do arise. And this force explains the swinging of the pendulums. That is all.

quote:

---

What is causing the Sun to spiral up and down? How far up? How far down? And to cause the seasons it would also have to spiral towards and away from the Earth, correct? What causes the seasons on Mars?

---

I already told you, the motion of the rotating cosmos exerts froces on the Sun, so the Sun follows these forces, with a delay of course. The same thing happens on Mars.

quote:

---

What does this have to do with anything? The phenomena is the same whether taken over several hours or several days or several weeks (depending on how high in lattitude observations are taken). That is the Sun stays in the sky past the normal 23 hrs, 56 minutes and 4 second on Earth and 24 hours, 39 minutes, and 35 seconds on Mars. Either way on both planets the close one travels to the pole the longer the days and nights are on these planets. The question is how does this occur on both planets? Is Mars revolving around the Earth or the Sun directly in your model? An illustration would be nice of your model so we can see what you are talking about.

---

Are you retarded? No, really, I'm not insulting you, I'm simply asking you do you have some mental damage? How can you even ask me if Mars is orbiting the Earth or the Sun? You have been constantly saying that my model is wrong, yet you are now, after 32 PAGES of discussion asking me what exactly my model is. I already told, you, Mars is orbiting the Sun, you idiot.

quote:

---

What does 'Mars is following the Sun's movement' mean? Do you mean Mars is revolving around the Sun which is itself revolving around the Earth? If so how can the Sun be simultaneously spiraling up and down the Earth's axis while at the same time spiraling up and down Mar's axis to create the Polar Day (Midnight Sun)/Polar Night phenomena? Unless you can show me some logical way this would work, your model falls to pieces.

---

Mars is doing the same thing. It is also spiraling up and down. All the planets are. This is a well know and observed fact. The only question is are they really doing so, or is it an illusion.

quote:

---

#1 We do not know with certitude whether the universe is infinite or not. We suspect that it is boundless meaning that their are no edges but as far as size we can only reliably measure the size of the observable universe.

---

If it is boundless it can not expand.

quote:

---

#2 An infinite object can increase in size i.e expand. i.e. 1+=

---

No it can not. In math you can do anything, but not in reality. You can write "5-6=-1". But in reality you can't take 6 apples from a person that only has 5 apples, and leaving him with -1 apple. Therefore, you can't expand the infinity.You can't have an infinite cube or a sphere. Because there would be no limit to the sides of the cube, so you cant really say it's a cube, or a sphere. By definition any object has to have limits to be an object in the first place. Therefore it can not be infinite.And if the universe is not infinite, than relativity is false. Simply because thean we have absolute motion.

quote:

---

Let me provide some context for anybody who may be reading. The Schwarzschild solution or Schwarzschild metric is a solution of Einstein's field equations. Basically it describes what spacetime should look like outside of a perfectly spherical body due to the mass of the body curving spacetime.
A good example would be the Sun, it's roughly a sphere so spacetime outside it looks roughly like the Schwarzschild solution. Then you can use the Schwarzschild solution to obtain the perihelion of Mercury and other basic effects in General Relativity. However if the body is small enough the Schwarzschild solution will have a region from which nothing can escape, which is a black hole.

---

You are clueless about sciece, physics, relativity or life in general. Schwarzschild's paper doesn't even talk about balck holes! Look at the part I highlighted in red:http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/698/blackh.gifThis is from the English translation of teh original paper. The translation cal be found here:http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/schwarzschild.pdfThere is nothing about black holes forming or anything similar to that.

quote:

---

The Scharzschild solution as found in textbooks most certainly describes a black hole, it's actually an exercise for undergraduates to show this in some GR courses. Schwarzschild himself never claimed it did because the poor lad died a few weeks after writing the paper in a German trench in WWI. However this is largely irrelevant since it can be easily shown that it does in fact describe a black hole.
Now one could argue that perhaps black holes are an artifact of the perfect spherical symmetry of the Schwarzschild solution, but the theorems of Hawking and Penrose show this is not the case and other more generic solutions also contain black holes.
So black holes are in fact a consequence of General Relativity. There isn't any debate about that since it can be proved to be the case.

---

Too bad you are pinfully wrong again. The "Black holes" is teh artifact of Hilbert's erroneous derivation. He misunderstood Schwarzschild's paper. No wonder Schwarzschild never talked about black holes, since they do not exist, and he never even thought about talking in his papers.

quote:

---

The fact that it is expanding does not mean it is not infinite.

---

Yes id does. A cube has to be finite to be a cube in the first place. You can't have an infinite cube or a sphere. If the universe has the shape of a sphere, than it can not by definition, be infinite.

quote:

---

As a simple counterexample imagine an infinite cosmos where distance between things doubles every second. (This is not a genuine model so do not consider it as such)

---

If everything is expanding than nothing is expanding. It's expanding relative to what? If every single point in the universe is expanding, than you have nothing getting larger, all stays the same size, relative to one another.

quote:

---

I do not understand how relative motion implies that there are no bounds. Could you explain?

---

It means that if we have bounds, than motion inside that object is absolute. The object itself is the absolute reference frame.

quote:

---

Except for the fact that I can solve Einstein's equations and obtain a solution describing a universe with a Big Bang, demonstrating that they are in fact compatible.

---

I can solve 5-6=? problem too... The answer is -1. Does that mean you can take 6 apples from someone who only has 5 apples, and leave him with -1 apple? No, you can't.Just because your model has equations which come out in numbers you like, that doesn't mean it has anything to do with reality.

quote:

---

Can anyone besides SO make any sense out of this?

​

What delay? What the hell are you talking about?

​

How does a 'delay' (whatever that means) cause the Sun to stay up in the sky up to 6 months at a time near the poles while at the same time at the equator there is no delay? HOW?

---

Because that is how the shell is spinning. If the shell has a wobble, than when it starts spinning up, the Sun will follow, but with a delay. The same goes when the shell starts spinning down. The spiraling orbit of the Sun is observable.

quote:

---

What are you 3? You have explained jack. You give short nonsensical, nonlogical quips and explaine absolutely nothing.

​

If Mars is orbiting the Sun and the Sun is orbiting the Earth how does the Sun stay up in the Martian polar sky weeks longer than the 12 hours that the Sun is in the sky at the martian equator?

​

You can't explain it can you? That is why you resort to name calling, pouting and having a toddler temper tantrum.

---

I'm going to call you anything I wan't because still, after 32 pages, you do not know what my model is supposed to be, yet you do know it's false. We can see this effect, because Mars has a spiral orbit also.

quote:

---

You just make this shit up as you go don't you?

​

So what is causing all these different movements to occur exactly?

---

No, I do not, this is common, knowledge. For an example, look at this comment on physorg.com

quote:

---

Kind of odd. Spiral movement of the Sun and the other planets around the Earth was once the concept of the heavens when our home was thought to be the center of the universe.
Now, a new planet is found to be spiraling around its home sun.
The reason for spiraling is to be found as well. Whatever the reason might be, it can give us a clue to the fate of Earth millions to billions of years from now.

---

http://www.physorg.com/news170513793.htmlAs you can clearly see, we can observe teh spiraling motion of the Sun and other planets. You are the one who is clueless about such observations. You didn't even know they existed. And if they are caused by anything, than the Sun's spiral orbit is caused by the rotating shell, and Mars' spiral orbit is caused by following the Sun.

quote:

---

A ball, balloon, etc (sphere) is boundless (has no edges) yet it can expand.

---

NO! Every single point on the baloon's surface is it's edge. Or are you saying a baloon is infinite? Obviously it's not.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter what Schwarzschild talked about, it doesn't matter what somebody says in an introduction to their translation of Schwarzschild's papers, it doesn't matter what you think Hilbert did or didn't do, because it is a mathematical fact (provable by a final year undergraduate) that the Schwarzschild solution contains a black hole. In fact I could prove it right now if you want or link you to several derivations.

---

That is not what Stephen Crothers says. He has written about it extensively. And he says that it's wrong. There are no black holes, and they are in contradiction with GR.

quote:

---

I have taken a look at Stephen Crothers website (as the wonderful onifire suggested ) and I must say I am not even remotely convinced this person understands the differential geometry required to use General Relativity, let alone actually criticise the mathematics of it. Take for example his Ric=0 page where he says Ric=0 forbids masses and violates special relativity and the equivalence principle. He doesn't seem to understand that the equivalence principle simply means that any spacetime should look like Minkowski spacetime near a point.* Instead he talks about it as some kind statement concerning masses and energy.

---

It also means that there is no mass or energy in that certain universe. Therefore no black hole can form from collapse of some mass. Because it doesn't exist. Yet, what scientists do when they do calculations, they simply later on, add mass to the equation and make equations to collapse it into a black hole. This is a problem because it violates First Law of thermodynamics. Matter and energy can't be created. Yet relativists simply do create matter out of nothing when doing their equations.

quote:

---

I get how a spiraling shell could cause a wobble in the sun's rotation around the Earth, but how could it simultaneously cause a wobble in Mar's rotation around the sun going around the Earth?

---

If it can cause the Sun to have a spiral orbit, than it can cause the Mars to do the same thing. But that's besides the point. If Mars is indeed following the Sun, than it will be following the Sun in a spiral fashion, simply because the Sun is spiraling.

quote:

---

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?

---

Sun is pulling on it with enough of the force to pull Mars. The Earth is in the middle of the universe, and in the midle of the forces acted upon by the universe, and therefore, it can not move.

quote:

---

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..."

---

Ir's not "by some means", it's rotation is causing a force to push the Earth to the center, where it already is, and that's why it can't be moved! And again, the reason it is not spinnig is not "becasue I say so" it's because it's in the center. All the forces that push the Earth, from the shell, are equal. Therefore, it doesn't rotate.

quote:

---

But mars isn't doing the same thing. The sun is sprial-orbiting around the center of the Universe, the Earth, because of the rotating shell around it. But Mars is sprial-orbiting around the sun, which is sprial orbiting around the center, so we have a sprial-orbit around another sprial orbit. I don't think that could be caused by one rotating shell. How could it?

---

No. Mars has a spiral orbit relative to Earth, not to the Sun. Precisely because it is following the Sun.

quote:

---

But its not simply following the sun. It has its own spiral-orbit around the sun's spiral orbit. That's too complicating to be accounted for by one rotating shell, is it not?

---

Who says it does? I never did. Did anyone else? It's only relative to Earth that we see this spiral.

quote:

---

I think you mean to say "...there is no other planet like ours known to us at present".

---

Well when you find one, than come back and tell me about it. Untill now, there is non, and no traces of one that I know of.

quote:

---

This entire comment reveals that you don't really appreciate the size of the known universe or how limited are our abilities to observe extra-solar planets. If this argument were limited to this solar system alone, it would be closer to the truth, though still not accurate (there is developing evidence of life on Mars, Titan and Europa, with the details still trickling in).

---

Maybe, because the universe is not that big? Did you ever think it's small? Did you ever think it's maybe about the size of 2 solar systems? And no, nobody ever saw life on Mars or, on titan, nobody ever saw an extrasolar planet. You are simply imagining things how you wish they would look.

quote:

---

With regard to extra-solar planets (planets around other stars), we are rapidly cataloguing a great many of them. See The Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia for a collated index of confirmed discoveries along with details of ongoing searches.

---

I have actually taken liberty to go and browse this site you linked to. And the only thing I can say is that you are dreaming. You are imagining things in your mind that do not exist. And than in turn are presenting these illusions as evidene.Like I said, there are no planets, outside the Solar system, that have ever been found. Not a single one.AladinThis link what what I found on your web site. It is showing a gray background with black dots. And one of them is marked as "Planet?". It actually has a question mark after the word planet. Are you kidding me!? What is this evidence for? That there are a lot of stars in the sky? Yes I know that. But how in the world can you even begin to imagine that one of those dots is a planet orbiting a Sun-like star is beyond me. Like I said, you are dreaming.I've also taken a screen cap so everyone can see this picture. It's simply a bunch of black dots on a gray background, nothing more...http://img185.imageshack.us/img185/1587/planet.gif

quote:

---

You are forgetting the weak anthropic principle, which says that we must consider that our location in the universe is necessarily privileged to the extent of being compatible with our existence as observers. In other words if our planet wasn't teeming with millions of life forms, we wouldn't be here to comment on how amazing it is that it is teeming with millions of life forms. That does not presuppose the possibility that other islands of life exist throughout the universe.

---

I know it doesn't. But that also doesn't mean that there is something out there. For all we know no, there isn't. When we find something, than let me know. Black dots don't count...