|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Relativity is wrong... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
ARE YOU MENTALLY RETARDED!?!!?!?!?!??!?!?!!?!?!?!?!? No. Not that I am aware of.
IF THE SHELL IS EXERTING TWO FORCES IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS THAN THE OBJECTS STAY AT THE SAME DISTANCE. ONE IS THE PUSH TOWARD THE CENTER FORCE, THE OTHER IS THE PULL FROM THE CENTER FORCE OF GRAVITY. You are simply assuming that the two forces balance each other out no matter where any body is in the universe. A feat of mathematical wizardry that just does not add up. How do you justify the two forces always being equal but opposite despite the bodies being acted upon being in continual motion and thus positions? You are simply making it up to justify nonsense.
The model does not add up, the model does not work, the model is flawed. Can't you say anything else? Do you have no other arguments than simply saying t he the model does not work? Does any more need to be said......? Take the Sun. According to your nonsensical model it is acted on by the gravitational effect of the Earth resolutely glued to the centre of the universe. And the Lense-Thirring effect also pushing it to the centre of the universe. And the gravitational force of the outer shell pulling it away from the centre of the universe. The closer to the Earth the Sun is the stronger the first of these two forces are. The further from the outer shell the Sun is the weaker any counter force is. Thus at the point the Sun is closest to the Earth in it's orbit the attractive forces are strongest and the pulling away force is weakest. You have said that the Lense-Thirring effect is strong enough to overcome any gravitational forces that may be present. Thus the resultant force would have had the Sun spiralling into the Earth many moons ago. And in fact every other body close to "the centre of the universe". And yet according to your bogus assumptions all the forces miraculously balance out perfectly as if by magic to result in exactly the orbits that are predicted by sane Newtonian Heliocentric models of the Solar system. Try again. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Still giving links to religious sites, huh? Still claiming your argument is not religiously driven?
Anyway... for the sake of anyone reading, Smooth's link creation-wiki claims:
quote: However, if you go to the link for the California observatory, no such thing is claimed. I read the whole thing, perhaps you can quote it? Till then, his link lied. But what can we expect from creation-wiki. Also:
quote: ...is another lie. If you go to the creation-wiki page and go to the link titled on line calculator you'll see the actual numbers. From the link:
quote: So, as anyone can see, Smooth's support link to his (bogus) argument is simply lying to try to make a point. Smooth, check your references next time before it makes you look like you're passing along false information. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
onifre writes: Smooth, check your references next time before it makes you look like you're passing along false information. Too late. (About 556 posts too late, to be exact.) "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Too late. (About 556 posts too late, to be exact.) - good point. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5113 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:After 189 posts on this topic, more than three times more then the second person with the most posts, a still you people don't understand anything. I have every right to call you everything I want. quote:Yes I do. But if you want to go into this kind of a discussion, you are leaving science and going into philosophy. We are talking about science now, not philosophy. Science assumes that matter we observe is real. There is no way to prove this assumption, because our eyes and brain is also matter, but if you want to do science, you are forced to accept matter as real. This is an axiom. From this axiom we create facts by observations, and from those observations we formulate theories. quote:But in the case of NASA, you don't simply just convert them. They add ARTIFICIAL OBJECTS to the pictures. Meaning, not real. quote:Wrong. We know what those signals are describing. They are all here on Earth. All those objects can be observed. Unlike those that are supposed to be millions of light-years away. quote:You can't tell me to stop being abusive, and use teh word fuck in the same sentance. That's stupid. It's like saying: "For fuck's sake, stop swearing!"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5113 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Than what are you using if not GR? And no, you can't just pick whatever you want. Simply because just because you decided to pick something, doesn't mean that it's a closed system. It's not. Just because you say that other objects in space do not affect the Solar system, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU PICK IT, has nothing to do with reality. Other objects still affect it. quote:LOOOOL! And the calculations are wrong, why!?!?!?! Maybe because the idea that those calculations are based on is... guess what... WRONG! And what might that idea be? Well the assumption of universal gravitation.
quote:No it doesn't. The word "calculation" is never used. quote:Than why are our calculations wrong? If gravity is actually universal, than why do we get the wrong results? quote:Of course I can. Simply because the idea of universal gravity is wrong. And, there are no large distances. Why exactly, can I no have both? quote:True. But Earth is much larger, so it's not flat. Unlike, the universe, which is small, and geocentric. quote:No, and no. It never even mentions the word "calculation". The quote specificly says, and uses the word "law". Like in "The law of universal gravitation". Therefore, the article is talking about the whole idea of universal gravity. Not calculations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5113 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
This is simply a general post, since I'm not talking to Oni, that mentally retarded cretin, and I refuse to reply to him. I will post this information in general. This is for anyone that thinks there are some mistakes in my links.
Kantoor huren | Kantoor huren of bedrijfsruimte huren This is the graph from the California site. If he was not as stupid as he was, he would have ccrolled down past the calculator and actually saw the graph. The graph is right under the calculator. And you can clearly see that the number of 8.538" is noted as the mean value, and 8.794 as the true value. So there, he can go and pray to Darwin now. Maybe he will let him evolve a bigger brain. Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5113 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Mentally retarded people are actually not aware that they are mentally retarded. quote:It's a good explanation becuase the farther the body is, the less gravity there is to attract it, but also less force is exerted on the body that should push it away. If the size, mass and the speed of rotation match, the forces can be balaced. This is a no brainer. The same as a helicopter can balance it's flight in mid air. It's engine is pushing the helicopter up, yet the gravity is pushing it down. But the two forces are balanced, and it's simply standing in mid air. quote:The LT effect is only responsible for the circular motion of things like the Faucault Pendulum. It arises only near the center. Yet the rotation of the shell is the one that pushes the objects toward the center thruout the universe. And yes, the shell's gravity cancels it out. quote:If that was true, why did not Earth, Moon, and all the other planets spiral into the Sun, so many millions of years ago? Obviously, the forces are in balance in either case. They cancel each other out. Even if they do not, in only 6000 years or so, no major changes would have occured. Actually it is your model that has a problem. In my model, all the spiraling into something could not have occured yet, simply becasue there was not enough time. Yet in your model, there was about 15 billion years. Which is enough time for the Mercury to spiral into the Sun, being so close to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3861 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
smooth operator writes: Mentally retarded people are actually not aware that they are mentally retarded. why, SO, that's the first thing you've said I agree with!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
SO writes: The LT effect is only responsible for the circular motion of things like the Faucault Pendulum. It arises only near the center. Yet the rotation of the shell is the one that pushes the objects toward the center thruout the universe. And yes, the shell's gravity cancels it out. If the forces specific to your model cancel each other out perfectly how do you know any of them are actually there?
SO writes: Yet in your model, there was about 15 billion years. Which is enough time for the Mercury to spiral into the Sun, being so close to it. A heliocentric model in conjunction with Newtonian gravity can mathematically predict the orbits of all the planets in the solar system. General Relativity can do so even more precisely. You cannot even mathematically show what forces act on any given body in your model. You simply assert that the forces acting are whatever you need them to be to prop up your contrived nonsense.
SO writes: Mentally retarded people are actually not aware that they are mentally retarded. Which is why you may not fully appreciate the irony of you making that statement. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3237 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Than what are you using if not GR? And no, you can't just pick whatever you want. Simply because just because you decided to pick something, doesn't mean that it's a closed system. It's not. Just because you say that other objects in space do not affect the Solar system, SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU PICK IT, has nothing to do with reality. Other objects still affect it. Not to any significant effect. FOr the last time. If I want to tell someone how to get to the center of my house when they're standing in my living room, does it make any sense to talk about the street, the city, the country, Mars, Andromeda, or anything that isn't actually part of, or in, my house? No. So, if I want to tell someone how to get to the center of the solar system, why would I talk about things outside the soalr system? If you have to do that to make your model make sense, then I posit your model just plain don't make sense.
LOOOOL! And the calculations are wrong, why!?!?!?! Maybe because the idea that those calculations are based on is... guess what... WRONG! And what might that idea be? Well the assumption of universal gravitation. Nope. The assumption is that localized effects hold true for generalized problems. It turns out they don't. This doesn't say, at all, that universal gravitation doesn't exist, it merely says that localized effects do not translate to generalized problems...as we already know. The papaer is positing that what we thought was the generalized equation is actually just another localized one. It's more general that Newton, but still not as general as we need it for large distances. It says nothing about whether or not there is, in fact, a generalized equation, and in fact, it attempts to give one. Quite a strange thing to do if there isn't one, don't you think?
No it doesn't. The word "calculation" is never used. You're right, which is where comprehension comes in. See, I can understand an agrument, then put it in my own words and still mean the same thing. In all of your threads, you've shown a complete inability to do so. You quote entire passages from websites, you link to entire websites without explaining what the website is saying, or even where, exactly, it says what you think it says. I understand the argument, and you keep showing you don't. Believe me or not, it's obvious to others here, and they're the only ones I have any hope of influencing because I know you're not ever going to change your mind when it's stuck in "pride mode."
Than why are our calculations wrong? If gravity is actually universal, than why do we get the wrong results As I said above, it's because what we thought was a generalized equation turned out (in the argument of this paper) to be another localized set of equations.
Of course I can. Simply because the idea of universal gravity is wrong. And, there are no large distances. Why exactly, can I no have both? The "evidence" for no generalized gravity, if we even grant your peculiar, incorrect interpretation of the paper, is predicated on there being large distances. If there are no large distances, this paper cannot be used as evidence of anything since it's describing a pipedream.
True. But Earth is much larger, so it's not flat. Unlike, the universe, which is small, and geocentric. And I'm just pointing out that you're arguing both that the large-scale measurements show something, AND that there are no large-scale measurements. You can't have it both ways...again!
No, and no. It never even mentions the word "calculation". The quote specificly says, and uses the word "law". Like in "The law of universal gravitation". Therefore, the article is talking about the whole idea of universal gravity. Not calculations. It says "Newton's Law" which is a very specific thing. Again, I can comprehend the argument and restate it in my own words. You can't. You're reduced to being a "find" command in a word processor. "Sorry, no instances of the word 'calculation' found." Again, comprehension, it's a great tool.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
This is simply a general post, since I'm not talking to Oni, that mentally retarded cretin, and I refuse to reply to him. I'm in no mood to get suspended, since I'm having a pretty good debate over in the Coffee House. But if I was, I'd tell you to go fuck yourself you moronic, imbecile. The only mentally retard fuck around here is you with your geocentric stupidity that you're trying to pedal. You're that fucking retarded that you contradict yourself even when you're contradicting yourself. You CHANGED the link you fuckstick. That's NOT the original one you provided for everyone to look at, you cited creation-wiki.. YOUR LINK WAS BOGUS. Next time quote the proper context of what you're saying so we/others can follow what you mean. Bare links don't help. Now, that's what I would have said had I been in the mood to comment back, but I'm not, so have a pleasent day, Smooth.
So there, he can go and pray to Darwin now. Maybe he will let him evolve a bigger brain. That actually made me laugh... - Oni [abe] I also want to quote from the original link, which you didn't provide in this new link of only the picture. From your link:
quote: Edited by onifre, : No reason given. Edited by onifre, : No reason given. Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5113 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
Another general post here, simply because you just can't keep a good retard down! He will come back and hit you with his stupidity over and over again!
Anyone can clearly see in my first Creationwiki link, that the link to the original article was there. I didn't swithch anything, and nothing was bogus. If my first link was "bougs" somehow, that who did Oni-moron find it int he first place? Obviousoly, it was from my original Creationwiki link. And another thing, the reason I only provided the picture only link, is because evrybod has already seen the original article, and the picture i posted is on that original article. Nobody is hiding anything. Anyone can see for themselves that the original article has the picture here: Bedrijfsruimte huren in Utrecht And that the Creationwiki article links to the above article. All you have to do is to find this sentance in the Creationwiki article:
quote:And yes, you will see that the words "California observatory" are linked to the original article, which has the picture of the graph I posted. And both numbers 8,538, and 8,794 are there on the graph.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5113 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Because we see their effects. We can see the anisotropic magnetic radiation coming from space. Which is best described as a rotation within a sphere. Therefore, the forces should exist. quote:And what about the Barbour and Berttoti paper I showed you weeks ago? Did you already forget about it? Or didn't you even wan to notice it? quote:It could very well be, but I doubt it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5113 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Two reasons: 1.) If the person is outside our solar system, you should better tell him that you house is not in the Andromed galaxy, but here on Earth. The farther away the person is from your house, the more specifc you have to be. 2.) The other reason is that gravity has nothing to do with this example. It doesn't matter where the person is located if he wants to find your house, the gravity will still affect Earth the same way. Because all the positions relative to one another are the same, and gravitational forces are the same. Unlike if all other galaxies didn't exist. There would be a repositioning in our solar sistem.
quote:And why is that!? Why do not local equations hold on general level? If gravity is the same thing here on Earth, as in the Andromeda glaaxy, than equations must give the same results. The only other explanation is that gravity is not universal. And that is why it works fine only near the Earth. quote:But your explanation is flawed. Please explain W-H-Y does gravity work only on local level, and not in gneral. If it is not because of it being non-universal, than what else could it be. Are the equations wrong? If so, than your whole model goes to pieces... quote:Oh, well than, that's great to hear. You do know what this means don't you? It means your model of the universe is DEAD! It does not work. It means you ahve no mathematical model for the movements of the astronomical bodies except near the Earth. Which means you have nothing. quote:The evidence for no universality is everywhere. Gravity - Wikipedia For few examples, whe have extra fast stars that move faster than they should, if gravity was universal. The Pioneer anomaly that shows that the satelites are slowing down faster than they would if gravity was universal. Flyby anomaly where spacecrafts experience more gravitational pull than they should. Anomalous increases of the AU where planetary orbits are expanding faster than if gravity was universal. And more...
quote:Wrong. I'm arguing that what scientists THINK are large scale measurements, are shown to be wrong. They are actually very close, and still wrong. quote:I know it says Newton's Law! That's the point. The full name of that "law" is the Newton's Law of UNIVERSAL gravitation. Which we have seen is a far cry from any kind of laws...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024