|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Relativity is wrong... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5114 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote: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: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5114 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:No. Mars has a spiral orbit relative to Earth, not to the Sun. Precisely because it is following the Sun. quote:Who says it does? I never did. Did anyone else? It's only relative to Earth that we see this spiral.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3238 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
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. Ok, so you accept that gravity acts on masses and causes them to move. The same (or more) force that the sun exerts on Mars is exerted on the Earth. You calim being "in the middle" of forces somehow makes imbalances disappear...or you're proposing a new force for which we have no evidence. I can't think of another option. If being in the middle counterbalances forces, this is some sort of new science, since in Heliocentric theories of our solar system, the sun wobbles, despite being in the middle, because the forces acting on it from moment to moment change. You have to show, somehow, that the forces acting on the earth are always in equilibrium, otherwise you're talking out your ass. If you're proposing another force that somehow keeps the earth in the middle and is so much stronger than gravity that it will cancel out any and all wobble caused by the fluctuating gravity field the earth is in, then there must be some way to detect this force. Provide evidence for this force or you're talking out your ass.
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. But ofrces don't work like that. If you have 1 million tons on one side of you and 5 million tons on the other, you're in the middle, but the stronger force is the gravity exerted by the 5 million tons and you will, at the very least, wobble toward it. What you're proposing would completely contradict everything we know and use in science all the way back to Newton and further. F=ma, if the mass changes, so does the force. You have to propose a mechanism for keeping the mass equal on all sides of the earth at all times despite the differential movement of things around the earth. If you can't, you're talking out your ass. If this "shell" exerts a force, what is it made of? Is it matter? Is it energy? Is it something we can't detect, but is obviously there because, well, you say so? Have you ever spun a bowl and put a ball in the bottom? The bowl's spinning pulls on the ball and makes it spin. If the shell exerts a force on the earth, and the shell is spipnning, then the shell will force the earth to spin along with it. This is simple physics. You have to show how this would not happen, or, for the final time, you're talking out your ass. So, you have at least three things you must provide a mechanism or evidence for, otherwise, you heard it, you're talking out your ass.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No. Mars has a spiral orbit relative to Earth, not to the Sun. Precisely because it is following the Sun. That can't be right... then we'd never see a midnight sun on Mars:
quote:Who says it does? I never did. Did anyone else? It's only relative to Earth that we see this spiral. We have had a midnight Sun on Earth and we have had a midnight sun on Mars. If the midnight Sun on Earth is explained by the sun having a spiral orbit around the Earth, then that same explanation cannot cause the midnight sun on Mars. And if its that Mars has a spiral orbit around the sun as well, then that cannot be explained by using a rotating shell around the Earth. Your model is flawed here. A much better explantion is that both the Earth and Mars are orbiting around the Sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5114 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote: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: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: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. Aladin This 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: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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Smooth Operator, how does your model explain the Oort Cloud, and long period comets?
"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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5114 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Oh really? Than please, describe the measuring process. quote:So what if we sent them? Did they ever touch the Sun? Obviously not. So if the probes don't actually know how far they are from the Sun, how can they know how big it is? quote:Hawking and Penrose are wrong. They cite each other in a circle. The same with every other scientist. And that it all comes back to the wrong "Schwarzschild solution", which isn't even his. Since he never even mentioned the word "Blach hole". quote:But Ric=0 means that there is no mass in the entire universe. Therefore, no mass to emit gravity. Therefore, no gravity can cause mass to collapse to a black hole. quote:Every single one is based on the same wrong idea. You yourself admit you are using the "Schwarzschild solution", so that is that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Izanagi Member (Idle past 5216 days) Posts: 263 Joined: |
Please, oh please tell me you don't actually believe in the Geocentric model of the Universe. If you do, please tell me you aren't American.
You realize that a Geocentric model needs to be incredibly complicated in order to account for everything that we observe just within our own Solar System. 1) You have to account for the motion of the planets, Sun, and moon through the sky and the fact that their paths across the sky varies. I guess you introduce a spiral orbit.2) Then your model has to address retrograde motion for all planets farther from the Sun than Earth. 3) Then you need to address the phases that Venus and Mercury go through like the Moon does. 4) You have to show what forces act on the orbits of everything else to make it spiral. 5) You have to show why the Earth doesn't wobble from all the gravitational forces acting upon it. 6) Your model will have to accurately predict the motion of the Sun, moon, and planets years in advance with relative precision (meaning your model has to be able to account for retrograde motion and Venetian and Mercurian phases, eclipses, etc). 7) Also explain to me, if the Earth is so special as to be the center of the Universe, why is there anything at all orbiting the Sun?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Please, oh please tell me you don't actually believe in the Geocentric model of the Universe. Of course he does - but we've just become totally accustomed to his craziness now. He has no model. He has zero predictive power. He doesn't believe in General Relativity, yet believes in the Lense-Thirring effect (an effect wholely based in General Relativity). And this very same effect that he claims makes the Sun and the planets rotate and spiral around us every 24 hrs, would by neccesity also make the Earth rotate - and the one central point to his argument is that the Earth does not rotate. You can see why we're all our asses off
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5114 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:It's actually the simplest model there is. The acentric model is 15 billion light years across. The geocentric should be no more that 100 AU. quote:Yes, everybody has seen that. Planets spiral in their orbits. There is nothing wrong with that. quote:Now that's simple. In the Tychonic model. All the planets orbit the Sun. And the Sun in turn orbits the Earth. Producing what we see as retrograde motions. quote:Since the planets orbit the Sun. The phases of Venus are clearly visible when Venus goes behind the Sun, and the Sun is between the Venus and Earth. quote:Show with what? Hands? The spiraling rotation of the giant shell that bounds the whole universe makes the Sun spiral. So since the other planets are following the Sun. They also spiral in their way, because the Sun's gravity is attracting them. quote:That's because the shell is exerting such forces equally on all sides of the Earth, so it can not move. All other gravitational forces are not strong enough to pull the Earth anywhere. quote:Heliocentric and Geocentric models both account for all observations, so their predictions are the same. quote:Why shouldn't there be? The Earth is special in a way that it supports life, and is in the center of the universe. Nothing wrong with other planets orbiting around the Sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5114 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Who the hell cares what you have in your heliocentric model. My model is different. And no, the Sun is not in the middle of anything in your model. You simply picked few planets and a Sun and based on an assumption that the Sun is the largest, and simply by excluding all the other stars, yous aid that it's in the middle. Well it's not. IF you are going to talk about the center of your model, you should pick the center of the mass of the whole universe. Now that would be the middle. quote:Not really, since gravity is not universal. Everybody knows that. That is why dark energy was invented. http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/MOND_sub.pdf Here you have described a new model for gravity that takes into account these anomalies. Werther the model is righ or wrong is not my point. The point is that gravity is not universal so whatever the froce the other planets exert on the Earth does not have to move it. Simply because we do not know that any force is exerted on the Earth from those planets anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3643 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
That's because the shell is exerting such forces equally on all sides of the Earth, so it can not move. Nonsense. The shell of matter exerts no force at the very centre of the Earth (by simple symmetry.) However it will of course make the Earth rotate by the very same Lense-Thirring frame-dragging, as the Earth is an extended object. If the Earth is not rotating, what exactly is counter-acting your Lense-Thirring effect? You have a rather large hole in your cosmology
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5114 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Do you see a spiral orbit on that picture? NO, obviously not. Therefore, Mars does not have a spiral orbit relative to the Sun. Both Mars and the Sun have a spiral orbit relative to the Eart. quote:The picture youa re showing me does not match with this picture here. http://fc01.deviantart.com/...idnight_Sun_by_Isilmetriel.jpg How can it when only one object is the one that is supposed to spiral around the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5114 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Simple. Since nobody ever saw an Oort cloud. It doesn't exist. quote:As you can see, even the wikipedia says so. It's a purely mystical object. Nothing more. Pure fantasy. Oort cloud - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Inactive Member |
Oh really? Than please, describe the measuring process.
First of all, do you accept that the satellite's observations of the rate of change of the size of the Sun might provide a basis for determining how large it is.If not I will need a common basis to work off, which is measuring the distance to the moon. Do you find reflecting a laser of the moon an acceptable way of measuring how far away it is? How about landing a satellite on it? So what if we sent them? Did they ever touch the Sun? Obviously not. So if the probes don't actually know how far they are from the Sun, how can they know how big it is?
One simple method is by observing the rate of change of size as the satellites approach. Also the Sun as been approached both along its equator and above its equator and these give consistent estimates of its size.
Hawking and Penrose are wrong.
Hawking and Penrose prove the theorem rigorously, so they simply cannot be wrong. If you cannot point out where you believe they are in error, could you give reasons as to why you believe Crothers is on to something?
They cite each other in a circle. The same with every other scientist.
This is not true, they wrote the main work together and reference previous papers whose work they draw on. This is standard practice as scientific work is rarely created out of the blue. Plus even if it was true, it doesn't effect the argument as independently formulated in textbooks.
And that it all comes back to the wrong "Schwarzschild solution", which isn't even his. Since he never even mentioned the word "Blach hole".
The theorems do not mention the Schwarszschild solution if you look at them. They only make statements about the formation of black holes in geometric theories of gravity (ones which describe gravity as the curvature of spacetime) like General Relativity.
But Ric=0 means that there is no mass in the entire universe.
If you impose that condition everywhere. Which isn't necessary to show the formation of black holes. Basically all you need is Ric = 0 to hold in a large enough region. If anybody wants to get an idea of the issues involved here, check out these great lectures:http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9409195 Edited by Son Goku, : Original contained a missing reference and the reference is in fact not available to general public. Included a reference that is.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024