Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Relativity is wrong...
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 496 of 633 (527261)
09-30-2009 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by Perdition
09-28-2009 1:45 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by Perdition, posted 09-28-2009 1:45 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by Perdition, posted 09-30-2009 4:51 PM Smooth Operator has replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 497 of 633 (527266)
09-30-2009 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by New Cat's Eye
09-28-2009 2:08 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2009 2:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-30-2009 4:56 PM Smooth Operator has replied

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


Message 498 of 633 (527270)
09-30-2009 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by Smooth Operator
09-30-2009 4:37 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by Smooth Operator, posted 09-30-2009 4:37 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 506 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-01-2009 7:22 PM Perdition has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 499 of 633 (527273)
09-30-2009 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 497 by Smooth Operator
09-30-2009 4:40 PM


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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Smooth Operator, posted 09-30-2009 4:40 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 508 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-01-2009 7:26 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 500 of 633 (527274)
09-30-2009 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 493 by Briterican
09-28-2009 3:38 PM


Re: Try Again....
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.
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:
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by Briterican, posted 09-28-2009 3:38 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 501 by Parasomnium, posted 09-30-2009 5:06 PM Smooth Operator has replied
 Message 513 by Briterican, posted 10-03-2009 10:35 PM Smooth Operator has replied

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


Message 501 of 633 (527280)
09-30-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 500 by Smooth Operator
09-30-2009 4:59 PM


Re: Try Again....
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by Smooth Operator, posted 09-30-2009 4:59 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-01-2009 7:28 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 502 of 633 (527282)
09-30-2009 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by Son Goku
09-28-2009 6:14 PM


Re: Yikes!
quote:
It has been known in some way since Aristarchus that the Sun is larger than the Earth. You can prove it by using no more than high school geometry and watching the moon.
Oh really? Than please, describe the measuring process.
quote:
Plus we've sent actual probes, over twenty, to the Sun.
How do you think the Sun might be smaller than the Earth?
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:
So? Hawking and Penrose have a theorem proving he is wrong. He can write about it from here until the end of time and it will not make a lick of difference. It would be like writing "On the Falsity of 1+1=2, Volumes 1-36"
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:
Well of course in the vacuum region there is no mass. It is the non-vacuum region which supplies the mass, the Schwarzschild solution describes the region outside the mass.
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:
Can you reference a textbook or article where this is being done, rather than some guy who says it is being done?
Every single one is based on the same wrong idea. You yourself admit you are using the "Schwarzschild solution", so that is that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by Son Goku, posted 09-28-2009 6:14 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 503 by Izanagi, posted 09-30-2009 6:39 PM Smooth Operator has replied
 Message 510 by Son Goku, posted 10-01-2009 7:30 PM Smooth Operator has replied

  
Izanagi
Member (Idle past 5216 days)
Posts: 263
Joined: 09-15-2009


Message 503 of 633 (527317)
09-30-2009 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 502 by Smooth Operator
09-30-2009 5:07 PM


Re: Yikes!
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by Smooth Operator, posted 09-30-2009 5:07 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by cavediver, posted 10-01-2009 4:41 AM Izanagi has not replied
 Message 505 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-01-2009 7:03 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 504 of 633 (527352)
10-01-2009 4:41 AM
Reply to: Message 503 by Izanagi
09-30-2009 6:39 PM


Re: Yikes!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 503 by Izanagi, posted 09-30-2009 6:39 PM Izanagi has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 505 of 633 (527590)
10-01-2009 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 503 by Izanagi
09-30-2009 6:39 PM


Re: Yikes!
quote:
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.
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:
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.
Yes, everybody has seen that. Planets spiral in their orbits. There is nothing wrong with that.
quote:
2) Then your model has to address retrograde motion for all planets farther from the Sun than Earth.
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:
3) Then you need to address the phases that Venus and Mercury go through like the Moon does.
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:
4) You have to show what forces act on the orbits of everything else to make it spiral.
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:
5) You have to show why the Earth doesn't wobble from all the gravitational forces acting upon it.
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:
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).
Heliocentric and Geocentric models both account for all observations, so their predictions are the same.
quote:
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 503 by Izanagi, posted 09-30-2009 6:39 PM Izanagi has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 507 by cavediver, posted 10-01-2009 7:24 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 506 of 633 (527598)
10-01-2009 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 498 by Perdition
09-30-2009 4:51 PM


quote:
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.
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by Perdition, posted 09-30-2009 4:51 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by Perdition, posted 10-02-2009 11:15 AM Smooth Operator has replied
 Message 512 by Izanagi, posted 10-02-2009 12:53 PM Smooth Operator has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 507 of 633 (527599)
10-01-2009 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 505 by Smooth Operator
10-01-2009 7:03 PM


Re: Yikes!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-01-2009 7:03 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 508 of 633 (527600)
10-01-2009 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 499 by New Cat's Eye
09-30-2009 4:56 PM


quote:
That can't be right... then we'd never see a midnight sun on Mars:
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:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-30-2009 4:56 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Smooth Operator
Member (Idle past 5114 days)
Posts: 630
Joined: 07-24-2009


Message 509 of 633 (527601)
10-01-2009 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by Parasomnium
09-30-2009 5:06 PM


Re: Try Again....
quote:
Smooth Operator, how does your model explain the Oort Cloud, and long period comets?
Simple. Since nobody ever saw an Oort cloud. It doesn't exist.
quote:
The Oort cloud (pronounced /ˈɔrt/ ort, alternatively the pik-Oort Cloud IPA: [ˈpik]) is a hypothetical spherical cloud of comets which may lie roughly 50,000 AU, or nearly a light-year, from the Sun.[
As you can see, even the wikipedia says so. It's a purely mystical object. Nothing more. Pure fantasy.
Oort cloud - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by Parasomnium, posted 09-30-2009 5:06 PM Parasomnium has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 510 of 633 (527604)
10-01-2009 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 502 by Smooth Operator
09-30-2009 5:07 PM


Astronomical distances and Black Holes
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by Smooth Operator, posted 09-30-2009 5:07 PM Smooth Operator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by Smooth Operator, posted 10-04-2009 12:17 AM Son Goku has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024