|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Relativity is wrong... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3892 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
What to me is incredible about SO's position is his selection of the Earth as the center on the one hand while disclaiming any religious motivation on the other. ...he said that? oh for the love of dog...that's just creationism dressed up as ID in a poor attempt to give it credence.
SO has been reluctant to discuss his true motivations. I'm not surprised. the objections that I'd like to hear from him though, although I know the answer he'd give (if any), are about how we've managed to perfectly model the universe to such a degree that we've landed on the moon and mars and titan and venus, slammed things into asteroids, inspected the sun and have successfully sent two probes out of our solar system. How did we manage to do that without a damn good understanding of the mechanics? ie, either somebody has all the answers as to how to correctly interpret things according to his weird and insane ramblings, we're bloody lucky (yeah, right) or things really do work how we think they do. I'd like to see NASA's real calculations since obviously the Earth is at the center of the universe. and probably flat. You're wondering about his answers, still? He'd say all the data's faked. Or he wouldn't answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
the objections that I'd like to hear from him though, although I know the answer he'd give (if any), are about how we've managed to perfectly model the universe to such a degree that we've landed on the moon and mars and titan and venus, slammed things into asteroids, inspected the sun and have successfully sent two probes out of our solar system. How did we manage to do that without a damn good understanding of the mechanics?
He claims that we haven't *really* observed that stuff as nobody has *really* seen it. He can't support the idea that his beliefs are not derived from religious ones. He's a liar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5145 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Well this is where you are wrong. The Earth is not exerting this kind of force. It doesn't have to. The outer shell is the one that is supposed to do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5145 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:I did, and as I already said. Teh Paper doesn't specify the numbers. It only gives out the equations. quote:You could have done this by yourself. But since you didn't here you go: http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/9905/no4.gif As you can clearly see. In this model the forces are indistinguishable from Newtonian ones. And everything that happens around the same as we see it today. Therefore, this speific Machian model of the universe is the same as the one we observe today. Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Well this is where you are wrong. The Earth is not exerting this kind of force. It doesn't have to. The outer shell is the one that is supposed to do it. Where is this shell? How have you detected its presence? Surely you have some corroborating observational evidence that forces you to include it while adhering to parsimony? What is it made of? How does it anchor the Sun, and why does it move in such a bizarre way (moving "up" and "down" relative to a few degrees off of the Earth's axis)? Why does the Sun, whose gravitational force is observationally proven fact, not yank the Earth out of it's stationary resting place like a moving bowling ball tethered to a stationary golf ball? Why are we able to travel beyond the Sun? For example, modeling the Sun's orbit around the Earth, our space probes Voyager 1 and 2 (among others) are at certain points of the year about 15 light-hours distant from the Earth, on the other side of the Sun. If there's a shell, how did those probes get on the other side of it without detecting it? They're about to leave the solar system completely by the way (by 2015 as I recall), with no "shell" in sight. Is your "shell" immaterial and undetectable? How do you know it's there then? Why is your extremely complicated model that introduces a plethora of unexplained mechanisms and new astronomical bodies that are otherwise undetected a better model than the one currently accepted by basically every astronomer on the planet? What reason is there to model the Earth as the center of the Universe, as opposed to me? Or Mars? Or the Sun? Or an arbitrary point a random distance away in a random direction? Is your choice to consider the Earth the center of everything completely arbitrary, or do you have an observation, empirically tested and independently verified reason to consider the Earth the center of the Universe?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13046 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.7 |
Hi Smooth Operator,
Over the next few days, let's say until Saturday morning, I'll offer suggestions for how to contribute more constructively to discussion. If at the end of that time I haven't seen any improvement then you'll be permanently suspended. Cocnerning this:
Smooth Operator writes: Well this is where you are wrong. The Earth is not exerting this kind of force. It doesn't have to. The outer shell is the one that is supposed to do it. You needed to explain how the outer shell keeps the sun in orbit around the Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5145 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Yes, exactly. Do you have a problem with that? My model explains everything we observe today. There is nothing that it does not explain. quote:Well the problem is that you are the one that thought those experiments somehow had no explanation in a geocentric model. That is your problem. It's your problem you thought that theEarth was moving. quote:My model is simpler than your model. Every movement you asign to the Earth I asign to the rotating cosmos and to the orbiting Sun. It's the same thing. Where my model comses on top is that I haven't got a 15 billion light years large univers, unobserved black holes, unobserved, dark matter or unobserved dark energy, or unobserved curved space, etc... quote:As I said. All observations can be explained from a geocentric position. And you have no evidence that the Earth is moving. All the evidence you have can be interpreted as the movement of the background. Not the Earth itself. quote:No, it isn't. Becasue if you picked a reference frame with Earth as static, well than guess what? You would see the Earth as standing still and have the entire universe rotate. So how do you know you picked the ight reference frame? You don't, becasue if relativity is true, youc an pick any one you want. And thus make anything moving or standing still. quote:I know you have no clue. It's been like this from the start. You simply dont' understand that motions are relative if relativity is true. That means that to say that "Earth is rotating around the Sun", is as true as to say "Sun is rotating around the Earth". The observable motions only depend on a reference frame you pick to observe teh motions. quote:But regardles of what you pick, other objects in space still influence our solar system. Therefore you can't jsut pick few objects that are the closest and construct a model in which all objects orbit the heaviest one. Because you are than discarding all other forces that influence the reality. quote:However you put it, why pick the few object near the Sun? Are other objects in space not influencing the solar system? They are. If they are, than you can't say that solar system with just few planets represents reality. It's like taking into account only the kitchen, and saying all the other rooms in your house do not consume any electricity. You still have to pay the bill, even though you chose to see electricity was spent only in the kitchen.
quote:First of all, nobody ever observed the Oort cloud. It's an invention out of nothing. Second, still, all that matter means nothing if we take into account all the other matter in the unverse.
quote:Spectrum analasys is meningles since we don't even know what stars are. A radio that gives of sound of a rock falling down, sounds like a rock falling down. A real rock falling down sounds the same. They are wastly different. And we don't even know how is the Sun burning up. quote:I don't know what they are. Nobody does. quote:Yes, that is what I'm claiming. And nobody knows what is causing the wobble. It's like asking what's casuing the universe to function. quote:The stars do not have to be perfectly following the rotating shell. They are rotating, but the shell of stars is not thin. It's quite large. That is why we see near stars, and distant stars. And that is why when looking at them, with respect to near stars, the distant ones have a parralax. quote:No we can't. Red shifting can not be explained as a dopller effect. I already explained that. quote:They are doing the same thing as if you would, and other people in a traing that was going in a circle. You would basicly all be going in a circle, thus rotating, yet, you would be free to walk around in the train coach as well. There are no contradictions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5145 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Do you have to have any religious motivations to perform an interferometry experiment? No, obviously not. Well those kind of experiments is what made me change my mind about Earth's position in the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5145 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:It's very simple. It's done by the gyroscope effect. Since the shell is rotating it is pushing the Sun towards the center of the shell. But at the same tiem the Sun is also orbiting inside the shell, and it is being pulled to the ends of the shell. Those two opposite forces cancel each other out. Not only that, but since the shell has a wobble, the Sun does too. That is why it goes up and down, like a spiral arounf the Earth. And that explains the seasons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5145 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:We have evidence of electromagnetic anisotropy coming from space. And it is coming in a way that it would seem that the universe is a 3D sphere that is rotating. And while it is doing so it is twisting on the electromagnetic radiation. Not only that but it looks that we are in teh center of this 3D sphere. Nobody knows what it is made of, it could be anything. Maybe we can help . . . : Page Not Found : Arts, Sciences & Engineering : University of Rochester
quote:Becasue it doesn't have enough force to do so. There is a lot of force exerted on all objects in the universe. The rotation of the shell keeps the Earth in the center. quote:Why shouldn't we be able to travel beyond the Sun? And when did I say that there is a shell around the Sun? Never. The shell is beyond the stars. It's supposed to be the end of the universe. quote:It's not immaterial. We have evidence that something is twisting the polarized light. It could be the rotation of the shell. Nobody knows for sure. And no, my model is vastly simpler than any other. There are no unobserved dark matter, dark energy, black holes etc. in my universe, and it's much smaller. quote:It's a logical conclusion. From all the interferometric experiments from Michelson-Morley, and Michelson-Gale. It would seem that the Earth is not moving, and that the universe is rotating around it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dogrelata Member (Idle past 5343 days) Posts: 201 From: Scotland Joined: |
Smooth Operator writes: The logical starting point is from the observing point. What do we observe? The universe, including the Sun, planets and the stars, orbiting us! This is a fact. This is what we observe. This is our logical starting point. Purely out of curiosity, if what we observe is so important to us, and what we observe is every body/mass in the universe moving through space and time, why would we ever imagine, even for the merest fraction of a second, that the planet we inhabit should be any different?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5145 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Because if we were at the center of a rotating cosmos, it's a logical conclusion, that we would not be moving anywhere. Actually, what I wanted to say is that this is our starting point. Our starting observation. That we are not moving, and that everything else is moving around us. This starting idea can be wrong, but we need evidence for that first.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Because if we were at the center of a rotating cosmos, it's a logical conclusion, that we would not be moving anywhere. Actually, what I wanted to say is that this is our starting point. Our starting observation. That we are not moving, and that everything else is moving around us. This starting idea can be wrong, but we need evidence for that first. If it's as self-evident as you seem to think it is, why have virtually all scientists come to the opposite conclusion? Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dogrelata Member (Idle past 5343 days) Posts: 201 From: Scotland Joined: |
Smooth Operator writes: Because if we were at the center of a rotating cosmos, it's a logical conclusion, that we would not be moving anywhere. Actually, what I wanted to say is that this is our starting point. Our starting observation. That we are not moving, and that everything else is moving around us. This starting idea can be wrong, but we need evidence for that first. Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. We look out into the cosmos and what we observe, without exception, are planets and stars moving through space and time. Our only logical starting point, therefore, is that all planets and stars move through space and time. To propose otherwise suggests a predisposed notion that planet earth ought to be at the centre of the universe rather than any rational analysis of what is observed, hence your opening statement, Because if we were at the center of a rotating cosmos
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
The paper does not even mention a shell. How can it take account of any forces exerted by a shell without mentioning it? What am I missing here?
Newtonian gravity combined with Newtons second law would not have a static Earth at the centre of the universe. Even if it started out in the centre. It would move as the forces of other orbitting bodies acted upon it. Unless it is held in place by an ethereal blue turtle swimming against the aether with the Earth taped to it's back.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024