Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Relativity is wrong...
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 556 of 633 (530430)
10-13-2009 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 550 by Smooth Operator
10-12-2009 12:23 AM


Your Model Your Terms - Still Doesn't Add Up.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 550 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-12-2009 12:23 AM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-14-2009 8:39 PM Straggler has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 557 of 633 (530477)
10-13-2009 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 551 by Smooth Operator
10-12-2009 12:34 AM


Re: Astronomical distances and Black Holes
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:
Yet a California observatory measured the optical Martian parallax during the 2003 opposition and arrived at an AU centered on 151.6 million kilometers, one percent larger that the radar value.
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:
The mean value from all the calculations was 8.538" of arc.
...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:
For comparison, the values of the mean distance and parallax of the sun, adopted by the International Astronomical Union, are 149597870 km and 8.794 respectively.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 551 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-12-2009 12:34 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 558 by Parasomnium, posted 10-13-2009 5:31 PM onifre has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 558 of 633 (530479)
10-13-2009 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 557 by onifre
10-13-2009 5:17 PM


Re: Astronomical distances and Black Holes
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by onifre, posted 10-13-2009 5:17 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 559 by onifre, posted 10-13-2009 5:35 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 559 of 633 (530483)
10-13-2009 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 558 by Parasomnium
10-13-2009 5:31 PM


Re: Astronomical distances and Black Holes
Too late. (About 556 posts too late, to be exact.)
- good point.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by Parasomnium, posted 10-13-2009 5:31 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 560 of 633 (530779)
10-14-2009 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 554 by Theodoric
10-12-2009 8:28 AM


quote:
Well I see where this is going. You have realized that your posts are lacking and you have nothing. Therefore, you resort to the personal attack.
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:
You do realize that everything you see with your own eyes is an interpretation don't you. Your brain interprets the stimulus coming in to your optic never and interprets it.
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:
Since human beings have a limited visual spectrum, date from the rest of the spectrum must be "converted' to a representation that allows us to see what the radio waves actually are picking up.
But in the case of NASA, you don't simply just convert them. They add ARTIFICIAL OBJECTS to the pictures. Meaning, not real.
quote:
From your argument you would have to say that radar and sonar are not real, because the displays that show the output are COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGES.
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:
BTW, grow the fuck up. There is no reason to attempt to be abusive here, it just makes you sound like a child.
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!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 554 by Theodoric, posted 10-12-2009 8:28 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 561 of 633 (530780)
10-14-2009 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 555 by Perdition
10-12-2009 1:03 PM


quote:
Who said I was using GR? I'm also not talking about the geometry of the whole universe. I'm speaking of a minor subset of it, so speaking only about that minor subset, I need only use that minor subset. It's like talking about positive, non-even prime numbers. I can say that the smallest positive, non-even prime number is 3, without having to worry about the number -23546. It's not part of the subset I'm looking at and is therefore irrelevant.
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:
WRONG! It is saying that our calculations for universal gravity are wrong, not that the concept is wrong.
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:
You quoted the part that says our calculations are wrong. If you think that part says what you claim, then, again, your English comprehension is lacking.
No it doesn't. The word "calculation" is never used.
quote:
As fopr saying that an approximation that works in special instances means the entire concept must be thrown out the window is ludicrous. Yes, the article claims our calculations when speaking about large scales is wrong. That does NOT mean that there are no calculations we could develop that will work for all scales. It does not mean that if you solve this new meta-gravity calculation for our localized space, it won't simplify to GR or to Newton's equations.
Than why are our calculations wrong? If gravity is actually universal, than why do we get the wrong results?
quote:
And this is all beside the point. If you don't believe in the large scales needed for our GR calculations to show error, then you've got nothing left to argue. It'd be like me saying, if a giant monster exists, it has a green nose, although I don't believe giant monsters exist, and if you believe giant monsters have blue noses you're wrong on two counts because we all know they have green noses...oh, and they don't exist. You can't have both, either they have green noses, OR they don't exist. Take your pick, either our calculations begin to fail at large distances (according to this idea, which is one of many) OR there are no lareg distances. You can't have both.
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:
Yep. And if only small scales exist (as you claim for the universe) then the Earth is flat, right?
True. But Earth is much larger, so it's not flat. Unlike, the universe, which is small, and geocentric.
quote:
I interpret it as saying that Newton's calculations, which he thought were universal, are not. What do you think it means?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 555 by Perdition, posted 10-12-2009 1:03 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 566 by Perdition, posted 10-15-2009 1:45 PM Smooth Operator has replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 562 of 633 (530784)
10-14-2009 8:27 PM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 567 by onifre, posted 10-15-2009 4:30 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 563 of 633 (530786)
10-14-2009 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 556 by Straggler
10-13-2009 12:57 PM


Re: Your Model Your Terms - Still Doesn't Add Up.
quote:
No. Not that I am aware of.
Mentally retarded people are actually not aware that they are mentally retarded.
quote:
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.
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:
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 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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 556 by Straggler, posted 10-13-2009 12:57 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 564 by greyseal, posted 10-15-2009 4:08 AM Smooth Operator has not replied
 Message 565 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2009 5:56 AM Smooth Operator has replied

  
greyseal
Member (Idle past 3861 days)
Posts: 464
Joined: 08-11-2009


Message 564 of 633 (530813)
10-15-2009 4:08 AM
Reply to: Message 563 by Smooth Operator
10-14-2009 8:39 PM


Re: Your Model Your Terms - Still Doesn't Add Up.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-14-2009 8:39 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 565 of 633 (530825)
10-15-2009 5:56 AM
Reply to: Message 563 by Smooth Operator
10-14-2009 8:39 PM


Re: Your Model Your Terms - Still Doesn't Add Up.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 563 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-14-2009 8:39 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 569 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-19-2009 3:44 AM Straggler has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3237 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 566 of 633 (530917)
10-15-2009 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 561 by Smooth Operator
10-14-2009 8:17 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 561 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-14-2009 8:17 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 570 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-19-2009 4:04 AM Perdition has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 567 of 633 (530959)
10-15-2009 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 562 by Smooth Operator
10-14-2009 8:27 PM


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:
However, as the number of usable observations increases, I expect that the error will diminish and the resulting solar parallax will tend to the true value of 8.794. Therefore, it's important to submit your own observational data.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 562 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-14-2009 8:27 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 568 of 633 (531599)
10-19-2009 3:36 AM


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:
Yet a California observatory measured the optical Martian parallax during the 2003 opposition and arrived at an AU centered on 151.6 million kilometers, one percent larger that the radar value.
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 571 by onifre, posted 10-19-2009 9:16 AM Smooth Operator has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 569 of 633 (531600)
10-19-2009 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 565 by Straggler
10-15-2009 5:56 AM


Re: Your Model Your Terms - Still Doesn't Add Up.
quote:
If the forces specific to your model cancel each other out perfectly how do you know any of them are actually there?
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:
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.
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:
Which is why you may not fully appreciate the irony of you making that statement.
It could very well be, but I doubt it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 565 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2009 5:56 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 572 by Straggler, posted 10-19-2009 10:51 AM Smooth Operator has replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5113 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 570 of 633 (531603)
10-19-2009 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 566 by Perdition
10-15-2009 1:45 PM


quote:
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.
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:
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?
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:
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."
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:
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.
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 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.
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:
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!
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:
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.
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 566 by Perdition, posted 10-15-2009 1:45 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 573 by Perdition, posted 10-19-2009 3:11 PM Smooth Operator 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