|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Relativity is wrong... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard Townsend Member (Idle past 4761 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined:
|
Re geocentricity, how do you explain parallax? how do you explain the apparent motions of other planets? Do you believe in epicycles?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I didn't think of the tilt thing..
but after I wrote that I though that you could image the sun's orbit gradually increasing, spiraling out, and then it somehow reverts and starts gradually decreasing, spiraling back towards us...then I thought: but that goes against the laws of physics.... But you're right, if we're gonna throw out some science we could just as easily through out the physics that it goes against too. But that brings up my other point that I had earlier in the hypocrisy of him using the "science" that he does reference, or saying that his position is not based on religion but is based on science. He picks and chooses the science that fits his position and discards that science that disproves it. You could take any position with that stance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
how do you explain parallax? After the geocentirism came up I've been thinking of this little animation I saw (i thought on wiki) of a simulation of a time lapse of the orbit of a panet (mars or venud, iirc). But there was a little loopty-loop in the orbit that was impossible to have if the Earth was stationary. I couldn't even remember the name of the type of orbit or whatever, but I think this parallax is close. Anyone out there know what I'm referring to?
This image is what I'm talking about, but the animation was so much more effective in demonstrating it. It pretty much proves without a doubt that Earth is moving.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined:
|
The planets seeming to reverse course during their orbits is called retrograde motion, and yeah, it occurs because we catch up to them in our orbit compared to theirs (or they catch up to us, if they're closer to the sun than we are.)
The ancients noticed this and conceived of the idea of epicycles. These were essentially loops on which the planets turned while also going around the Earth. Parralax is the apparant motion of the stars as we move around the sun. For instance, on side of the sun, we can see Orion, but on the other side of the sun, we can't. Parralax can be used to determine the distance to stars, since can measure the angle of difference between their apparent location, and we know the baseline of the triangle, which is the diameter of the Earth's orbit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
The planets seeming to reverse course during their orbits is called retrograde motion That's it!!! Thank you. Okay, here's the gif I was thinking of:
Impossible if the Earth is stationary, not based on an assumption, and yet directly observable. It should fit SO's criteria and prove the Earth is in motion. I'm curious how he'll weasel his way out of this one. Probably by not responding at all :-\ ABE: Here's the wiki page I got the image from: Retrograde and prograde motion - Wikipedia Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined:
|
Impossible if the Earth is stationary, not based on an assumption, and yet directly observable. It should fit SO's criteria and prove the Earth is in motion. I'm curious how he'll weasel his way out of this one. Probably by not responding at all :-\ Well, technically, it's not impossible just highly unlikely. As I said, the ancients "solved" the problem with ever more complex sets of epicycles upon epicycles. The problem comes in trying to explain how those epicycles work now that we know the planets aren't just lights on the dome of the sky, but are rather large bodies flying through space under the laws of physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I guess SO will have to argue that the stars aren't really big fireballs really far away in space and are just these little lights in the firmament that move around.
SO: Is the aether inside or outside of the firmament?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined:
|
I guess SO will have to argue that the stars aren't really big fireballs really far away in space and are just these little lights in the firmament that move around. Well, that is how they look. And as anyone over the age of 2 knows, everything is exactly how it appears at first glance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Well, that is how they look. And as anyone over the age of 2 knows, everything is exactly how it appears at first glance. In Message 62, SO write:
quote: What a moron!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard Townsend Member (Idle past 4761 days) Posts: 103 From: London, England Joined:
|
Well, technically, it's not impossible just highly unlikely. As I said, the ancients "solved" the problem with ever more complex sets of epicycles upon epicycles. The problem comes in trying to explain how those epicycles work now that we know the planets aren't just lights on the dome of the sky, but are rather large bodies flying through space under the laws of physics. I am sure SO will find a way - I'm interested to see what it is! The problem is even worse if we take into account precession of orbits - particularly Mercury's. Ironically that's explained by general relativity. Or not if you're SO.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
The other problem is the how and what would cause the Sun (and everything else) to revolve around an object of smaller density?
We know from Newton that mass is the source of gravity, but special relativity says that mass is the sum of energy and linear momentum density, so all matter must be moving to curve spacetime. This is why we know the Earth is moving but also that the Sun is as well, thus creating a gravitational force. But in SO's geocentric model there is no explanation as to why anything revolves around anything else - big or small. It fails to explain even simply things like, why do we have a moon? It just seems to leave every single question unanswered. How would planets even form if mass density didn't curve spacetime? Why is there gravitational lensing? How does a star form? How do black holes form? What makes objects collide with planets, and other objects for that matter? - What he doesn't understand is that pointing out a few anomalies, or one or two people who disagree with certain specifics about relativity, doesn't change anything when we take the system as a whole. Small objects revolve around larger ones because space is curved, space is curved due to energy and momentum density, so we can't have curvature without motion. This explains, for the most part, the how and why smaller objects orbit larger ones, and we observe the planets acting according to predictions. Even if it was 100% wrong, any other thoery would still have to make predictions that match observation. Furthermore, any other theory would also have to explain what gravity is and how it works. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4219 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined:
|
But in SO's geocentric model there is no explanation as to why anything revolves around anything else - big or small. It fails to explain even simply things like, why do we have a moon? That is the point. Whenever someone tries to debunk a robust theory, they may make a seemingly legitimate point, but in the process creates numerous other problems which their solution makes. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4670 days) Posts: 1456 Joined:
|
Technically, the earth and the Sun are revolving around their common center of mass ... but it is 'inside' the sun ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined:
|
NosyNed writes: Myself writes: At this rate of the speed the stars would be smeared across the sky as long arcs and the sun would be also be blurred as a long elipse beyond recognition. They would? I don't see why? Because to a stationary observer (in this case someone on a stationary Earth around which rotates the universe) objects traveling at the speed of light would appear to be flattened and stretched to infinity. However, if an object could hypothetically travel faster than speed of light because this defies the laws of physics it is unknown exactly how this would appear to a stationary observer however my own prediction is that these objects would still be stretched to infinity but moving in backwards through time (cavediver or someone else correct me if I am wrong here). Additionally the problem of course with using this analogy is that Smooth Operator rejects the ToR and all of known physics outright anyways so this is really a moot point. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3130 days) Posts: 1548 Joined:
|
Technically, the earth and the Sun are revolving around their common center of mass ... but it is 'inside' the sun ... Very true. Maybe this is the epicycles that SO is claiming that the planets and even the Sun itself exhibit. Problem with this though is like you stated these are very small 'epicycles', which are not observable from Earth with the naked eye or crude instruments but only by using very accurate instruments to determine the center of mass of a planetary body and the rotation around this center point. Sidebar: I would almost think that SO was a science troll seeking to intellectualy challenge other scientific minded people on our assumptions of common knowledge and encourage deeper thinking. However due to his other racist remarks and abject stupidity on StormFront my conclusion is that HE really is this ignorant and thinks the universe revolves around the Earth. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024