Relativity is wrong...

quote:

---

Ok, what else then? Why does the most elegent, reasonable possibility (a planet) deserve such incredulous reaction? And why would you believe that our star would have planets while the others in our galaxy (estimated at 100 billion) should not?

---

I have given you a lot of examples of what else could it be. A planet is not a reasonable explanation simply because we never saw any outside the ones orbiting the Sun. And all those other galaxies are not simply bunch of stars with planets orbiting around them. Liek I explained in one of my posts, those are interpretations of what should be there...

And yet if a force pushing "everything" to the centre of the room existed we would expect the tables, chairs etc. etc. to be clumped together at the centre of the room rather than distributed around that room. No? So then we have "magic". A phenomenon that is the the result of General Relativity to begin with (the Lense-Thirring effect) is cited as evidence against relativity itself.You then cite this force acting on "everything" as responsible for holding the Earth in the location that you decide it must occupy at the centre of the universe. But for some reason it does not also push the Sun or any other planets towards this centre.Are you advocating magic? Or are you going to show how all competing and ever changing forces are continuously balanced to result in your ludicrous model where the earth but nothing else is at the centre of the universe?SO - If you see no other flaw in your argument will you at least concede that your position amounts to deciding what is true and then making the "facts" and "evidence" fit around that rather than the other way round?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No, you can calculate average distance. The more measurements you take over time, the more accurate the calculation is. Taking one measurement a week for a year gives me a more accurate calculation for average distance than if I took measurements once a month for a year. Taking the measurements for a year and a half makes the measurements even more accurate because I can show that the distances only vary within a year but are roughly the same from year to year. So it doesn't really matter that the distance fluctuates. And regardless of whether you know when the Earth is the closest and farthest from the Sun, the calculations anyone makes will be about what the currently measured distance from Sun to Earth is give or take a few percent. And velocity has no effect on the calculation of average distance. Your arguing against math here.

---

Okay than. Explain how do you get the average distance to the Sun. But without first knowing how far the Sun actually is. Do you not see that this is impossible?

quote:

---

No, what you have said is that some force causes Earth to not rotate. But how is this force acting solely on the Earth but not on anything else? To ask a question already asked of you, why is not everything hurtling towards the center of the Universe, the Earth if there is some mystic force pushing on the center. Saying no two objects cannot exist on the same point only dodges the question.

---

Wrong. I never said there is a force that acts on the Earth only. The shell exerts forces on all objects. That is, it's gravity does. But the forces of the LT effect arise only near the center.

quote:

---

If no two atoms can exist on the same point, doesn't that mean we couldn't crush cars? Are you suggesting that nothing can be crushed, mixed, or dissolved?

---

LOL? Crushing is displacement of atoms, not putting them in the same place at the same time. Where the hell did you get that idea?

quote:

---

At the very least, all objects in your Universe should be right next to each other because of this force that is not causing the Earth to rotate. So explain why the Sun is not right next to the Earth and the moon is many hundreds of thousands of miles away and not at my backdoor?

---

Because the shell has it's gravitational pull and in the same time pushes everything towards the ceneter. Therefore, everything stays in the same place, more or less, relative to the shell.

quote:

---

What do you mean, "no evidence?" The evidence is the math. Newton's laws work well, even in our solar neighborhood. The evidence are the observations people have made, observations such as stellar parallax.

---

I explained the parralax a billion times already. Can't you go and look for it? And math is no evidence in physics. To ahve evidence in physics, you need empirical not mathematical evidence.

quote:

---

All you have is your rotating, wobbling, and now circling up and down sphere but no observations or proof of this sphere. Tell me, how can anyone test for this sphere? Where can we look for this sphere? If your model is the right one, then there are ways to prove it correct, the simplest is to see this sphere. So show me a picture of this sphere or data that proves the existence of this sphere.

---

And again, for the billionth time. I already gave links the the anisotropic electromagnetic radiation form outer space, that is best explained by a rotating 3D sphere. Please go and look for it. I'm so tiered of the same questions over and over again.

quote:

---

You evaded the question. First, dark matter is not used to explain the spring and neap tides. Only the gravity of the sun and moon are used to explain the tides. Second, you can't say, "my model doesn't need dark matter so it's right" to prove your model correct. You need to show how your model explains spring and neap tides. So show me the math that your model explains the spring and neap tides without assuming gravitation is universal.

---

The Sun orbits in a spiraling fashion around the Earth. Not only that but it varies in distance. Thus all of this causes the tides and seasons.

quote:

---

And how do you know what Tesla said? Were you there? Show me what Tesla says. Show me this competing theory that Tesla produced.

---

Here you go:
http://www.scene.org/...esla.hu-mirror/articles/19370710.docThis is the short lectureTesla made in 1930s. It was about his Dynamic Theory of gravity, and the idea that all the enrgy we have comes from the aether.

quote:

---

SO, understand that all you are doing is making assertions. You say the currently accepted model is wrong, but you haven't shown how your model is better. You have not shown the math, the forces, or any scrap of observable evidence. This is my challenge to you: Show the math, a model of how the forces interact, and any observable evidence to back up your geocentric model.

---

Actually I have shown all of this. Maybe you are not very good with numbers or something, but the number "36" on this page, indicates that this topic is 36 pages long. If you are interested try and brows through it a bit. You will find the answers to all your questions.

quote:

---

And yet if a force pushing "everything" to the centre of the room existed we would expect the tables, chairs etc. etc. to be clumped together at the centre of the room rather than distributed around that room. No?

---

No we wouldn't. Simply because the shell is exerting the force of gravity that pulls everything towards it. Thus canceling out the forces that it produces and pushes everything from itself.

quote:

---

So then we have "magic". A phenomenon that is the the result of General Relativity to begin with (the Lense-Thirring effect) is cited as evidence against relativity itself.

---

Stop being an idiot. This is a Machian effect, which Einsten claimed supports his theory. I said that earlier. Stop pretending you didn't read it.

quote:

---

You then cite this force acting on "everything" as responsible for holding the Earth in the location that you decide it must occupy at the centre of the universe. But for some reason it does not also push the Sun or any other planets towards this centre.

---

Becasue, you mentally challenged dwarf, the shell has it's own gravity, which pulls everything towards itself. How many tiems to I have to repeat this same statement!?

quote:

---

Are you advocating magic? Or are you going to show how all competing and ever changing forces are continuously balanced to result in your ludicrous model where the earth but nothing else is at the centre of the universe?

---

Since when is gravity magic? Since when is only one object in the one place at one time magic? It's an observable fact.

quote:

---

SO - If you see no other flaw in your argument will you at least concede that your position amounts to deciding what is true and then making the "facts" and "evidence" fit around that rather than the other way round?

---

No. I have cited all the evidence for my position from observable experimental findings. Which one of my explanations is wrong? Gravity? LT effect? Inabillity of 2 or more objects to be in the same place in the same time?

Why does the Sun (or any other body) not get pushed to the centre of the universe? Why does the Sun (or any other body) not get pulled towards the outer shell? How are you constantly balancing all the different forces? Your model is unworkable. The fact that at any given time you are selectively applying the force you want to the body you want to achieve the result you want.The model does not add up. And it certainly cannot predict planetary orbits. Which some might see as something of a weakness.....Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Congratulations, you just broke my brain; I can't believe what I read in Message 543 and Message 544. My head hurts now. I'll address your other points, but since the answer to your first point I had posted earlier in Message 518, I'll just copy and paste it for you to see again. Interestingly enough, you can calculate the size of something using simple trig and ratios. First you need to know how far away the Sun is. What we do is measure the distance to the Moon using the time it takes a radar beam to travel to the Moon and back. Then when the moon is at a right angle between the Earth and the Sun, we calculate the angle between the side and hypotenuse at the Earth point. Using trig, we can calculate, with a degree of error, the distance to the Sun.As you can see, it is not impossible. All it requires is Trigonometry, one angle, and one distance. Do this over the course of the year, and you have a good working average distance of Earth to Sun.I'll address your other points later.Edited by Izanagi, : No reason given.

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts..." - Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

Great work Iz. We can also do the same thing with Venus by bouncing off radio waves off of Venus surface to measure its distance from us which I also mentioned way back in Message 142 and using trig to calculate the Sun's distance as well. SO even accepted the 91 million miles distance of the Earth from the Sun here: Message 112And here I though only politicians were wishy-washy in their ideology .You do realize it is futile arguing with this idiot. I was seriously hoping he was a troll because I couldn't bring myself to take seriously that someone would be this deliberately stupid.Of course maybe SO is a troll and is just laughing his ass off to how long the administrators have kept this absurd thread going.

---

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Your statements are contradictory. You say you never said there is a force that acts on the Earth only. Then you go on to say that the forces of the LT effect arise only near the center. The forces of the LT effect are a force that act on the Earth only. So which is it? Are there forces that act solely on the Earth or not? You said that the sun, moon, planets, the moons of all the planets, etc. are not being pushed towards the Earth because no two objects can occupy the same space. What was asked of you is why isn't the sun, moon, and everything else but the Earth not moving towards the Earth? Your answer is: What causes everything to be pushed into the center? If gravitational is not universal, why does the shell seem to exert a universal attraction constantly equal to the force that pushes everything to the center. If gravitation wasn't universal, that would mean that gravity would be inconsistent in different regions of space. It would seem that your model in fact assumes universal gravitation. Your explanation depends on your shell wobbling, rotating, pushing, pulling, and making circles. Explain all the forces that cause your shell to do all those things.Math is not evidence in physics, that is true, but mathematical models are necessary to help us explain what we observe in the real world. Mathematical models help us to make predictions. But physicists do no accept any mathematical models unless they are capable of explaining current data and are capable of making predictions which can be verified through experimentation. So when I ask for your mathematical model, I am asking for it because it is necessary in order to make predictions that can be verified. Explain how a spiraling and distance-varying sun causes the tides! On Earth, the moon causes the tides, but the Sun's gravity can amplify or lessen the effect at certain times of the year. But you don't believe in universal gravitation. So explain the forces from the spiraling and distance-varying sun that cause the Spring and Neap Tides. He said a lot more than that. He believed in the electromagnetic forces and felt that everything could be explained through that single force. For instance, his idea of gravity was that there were tubes that channeled energy down, causing gravity. This is akin to saying angels are pushing down on people to prevent them from falling up. The fact is, Tesla never did produce a paper on his theory, explaining the model and the mathematics. That's why you can't find any detailed information on it, which is fine for you because it makes it simpler for you to digest and use. But it doesn't serve to convince any rational being.SO, you have made it clear that you aren't interested in an honest debate. You have made assertions and claims with nothing to back up those claims. Your idea lacks predictive power, and relies on a rotating, pulling, pushing, polka-dotted, and god knows what else sphere. You argue gravitation is not universal when even your pushing pulling sphere would require universal gravitation in order to work as you say it should. You argue your model works yet you have not shown how it works, the mathematics behind it, or any description of the forces that are acting upon the planets in the solar system.In short, it is incredible to believe that you actually believe your model is simpler than a heliocentric model. I can only conclude as Devil's Advocate has concluded: you are either a troll or an extremely misguided person. Either way, I say good day to you sir.

---

It's just some things you never get over. That's just the way it is. You go on through... best as you can. - Matthew Scott
----------------------------------------
This is very similar to the suggestion put forward by the Quirmian philosopher Ventre, who said, "Possibly the gods exist, and possibly they do not. So why not believe in them in any case? If it's all true you'll go to a lovely place when you die, and if it isn't then you've lost nothing, right?" When he died he woke up in a circle of gods holding nasty-looking sticks and one of them said, "We're going to show you what we think of Mr Clever Dick in these parts..." - Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
----------------------------------------
You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn't it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. - Marcus Cole

{qsBesides, that picture is not real.[/qs]So only light visible by humans is real? Creatures that see outside of the visible spectrums of humans do not experience reality?What types of input is 'real"?Radio waves are not real? You only trust data from the naked eye?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

Why does the Sun (or any other body) not get pushed to the centre of the universe? Why does the Sun (or any other body) not get pulled towards the outer shell? How are you constantly balancing all the different forces? Your model is unworkable.

---

ARE YOU MENTALLY RETARDED!?!!?!?!?!??!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?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.

quote:

---

The fact that at any given time you are selectively applying the force you want to the body you want to achieve the result you want.

​

The model does not add up. And it certainly cannot predict planetary orbits. Which some might see as something of a weakness.....

---

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?

quote:

---

Interestingly enough, you can calculate the size of something using simple trig and ratios. First you need to know how far away the Sun is. What we do is measure the distance to the Moon using the time it takes a radar beam to travel to the Moon and back. Then when the moon is at a right angle between the Earth and the Sun, we calculate the angle between the side and hypotenuse at the Earth point.

---

But we do not know how far away the Moon is.

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. Thirty-two of the forty-two on line calculations of the 2004 Venus transit arrived at a lower parallax than the radar value. The on line calculator computed the parallax using either Halley’s method or Delisle’s method. The mean value from all the calculations was 8.538" of arc. This is about three million kilometers larger than the radar distance. (Halley’s method involves timing the duration of the transit. Delisle’s method uses clock-time to time the moments of ingress or egress.) The reader could argue that these measurements could be in error. Without question, observers can make mistakes. How likely is it that generations of astronomers keep on making mistakes that gradually increment in the same direction?

---

Essay:Victorious Biblical Astronomy Part 8 - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceAs you can see here, the radio signals that are sent to other planets do not match with calculations from other methods. Every method you use, you get a different number, for the distance to other planets. Not only that, but with time, over the interval of one yesr, the distance changes incrementally. Therefore it's wrong.

quote:

---

Your statements are contradictory. You say you never said there is a force that acts on the Earth only. Then you go on to say that the forces of the LT effect arise only near the center. The forces of the LT effect are a force that act on the Earth only. So which is it? Are there forces that act solely on the Earth or not?

---

That's how the force works. If something came closer to the Earth's center, it too would be affected by the force. The LT effect happens to occure near the center.

quote:

---

You said that the sun, moon, planets, the moons of all the planets, etc. are not being pushed towards the Earth because no two objects can occupy the same space. What was asked of you is why isn't the sun, moon, and everything else but the Earth not moving towards the Earth?

---

No. I said the reason they are not in the center is because the Eath is, and since two objects can't be in the same place at the same time, only the Eaeth can, and is in the center. The reson they do not get pushed towards the Earth, is simply becuase the shell is exerting a force the pushes and pulls the objects int he same time.

quote:

---

What causes everything to be pushed into the center? If gravitational is not universal, why does the shell seem to exert a universal attraction constantly equal to the force that pushes everything to the center. If gravitation wasn't universal, that would mean that gravity would be inconsistent in different regions of space. It would seem that your model in fact assumes universal gravitation.

---

The shell's rotation pushes everything towards teh center. Gravitation does not need to be universal for all objects to have it, yet at different magnitudets.

quote:

---

Your explanation depends on your shell wobbling, rotating, pushing, pulling, and making circles. Explain all the forces that cause your shell to do all those things.

---

It's simply inertia that keeps the shell going. There is nothing more. Once it got set in motio0n it does not stop.

quote:

---

Math is not evidence in physics, that is true, but mathematical models are necessary to help us explain what we observe in the real world. Mathematical models help us to make predictions. But physicists do no accept any mathematical models unless they are capable of explaining current data and are capable of making predictions which can be verified through experimentation. So when I ask for your mathematical model, I am asking for it because it is necessary in order to make predictions that can be verified.

---

Fine. If you are that interested, search this topic and you will find it. It's not that hard.

quote:

---

Explain how a spiraling and distance-varying sun causes the tides! On Earth, the moon causes the tides, but the Sun's gravity can amplify or lessen the effect at certain times of the year. But you don't believe in universal gravitation. So explain the forces from the spiraling and distance-varying sun that cause the Spring and Neap Tides.

---

The same way an orbiting and a tilted Earth causes the seasons and tides. Don't you get it!? It's the same explanation by same forces, the only differnece is that motions are switched. In your model the Earth moves, in my model the Sun does. That is all to it. And as I already pointed out. Both Sun and the Moon can have gravity, but not necessarily the same magnitude as the one on Earth.

quote:

---

He said a lot more than that. He believed in the electromagnetic forces and felt that everything could be explained through that single force. For instance, his idea of gravity was that there were tubes that channeled energy down, causing gravity. This is akin to saying angels are pushing down on people to prevent them from falling up.

---

Are you retarded? Is saying that little balls are hurling through a wire and are producing electricity, saying that angels are pushing them and causing electricity? You idiot! Electrons are not magic. Neitehr is the aether.

quote:

---

The fact is, Tesla never did produce a paper on his theory, explaining the model and the mathematics. That's why you can't find any detailed information on it, which is fine for you because it makes it simpler for you to digest and use. But it doesn't serve to convince any rational being.

---

Cretin! He produced the papers but he died before he could publish them! After his death his hotel room got raided by the FBI and all his papers were taken away.If you actually had a single brain cell in that stupid head of yours you would know that FBI has 287 pages of documents on Tesla. It's even on the FBI webpage!Freedom of Information/Privacy Act — FBIIf you actually knew anything about him, you would know that all his inventions were based on the aether. So if they all worked, it means his theoretical ideas were just as good. He invented the radio, the alternating current, wireless energy transfer among other things. And now you are going to say he was wrong!?

quote:

---

SO, you have made it clear that you aren't interested in an honest debate.

---

No, you are the one who made it clear who is mentally challenged.

quote:

---

You have made assertions and claims with nothing to back up those claims.

---

Again, you crazy lunatic. If you browsed through the topic a bit, you would have seen I have posted a link to every single statement I have made.

quote:

---

Your idea lacks predictive power, and relies on a rotating, pulling, pushing, polka-dotted, and god knows what else sphere.

---

What predictions did you make? Nothing. ZERO. You simply keep repeating crap over and over again.

quote:

---

You argue gravitation is not universal when even your pushing pulling sphere would require universal gravitation in order to work as you say it should.

---

No it wouldn't. This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life. How many times did you fall on your head while you were little? The only thing that my model requires is the gravitational field with variying amount of gravitational force. If that is so, that gravity does not have to be universal.

quote:

---

You argue your model works yet you have not shown how it works, the mathematics behind it, or any description of the forces that are acting upon the planets in the solar system.

---

Again, you imbecile. BROWSE THE GOD DAMN TOPIC AND YOU WILL FIND IT! Are you blind or stupid. I have 187 posts on this topic. MORE THAN THREE TIMES MORE than the person who has the second most posts on the topic, and that is only 52 posts. Everyone has way less than me. Don't tell me I didn't show anything about my model. Because if I didn't, than nobody else didn't either.

quote:

---

In short, it is incredible to believe that you actually believe your model is simpler than a heliocentric model. I can only conclude as Devil's Advocate has concluded: you are either a troll or an extremely misguided person. Either way, I say good day to you sir.

---

Finally. Go away, and never come back. You are the dumbest poster I ever had mispleasure dealing with... Where the hell do these people come come up with their attitudes...

quote:

---

So only light visible by humans is real? Creatures that see outside of the visible spectrums of humans do not experience reality?

​

What types of input is 'real"?

​

Radio waves are not real? You only trust data from the naked eye?

---

Are you retarded? Do you read and speak English very well? Did you have a lobotomy as a kid? Did you ever read, and understand my post? I never said that radio waves are not real, I said that those radio waves are interpreted, and made to look like planets, stars, and galaxies, based on the heliocentric, relativistic big bang model of the universe, USING COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGES!The radio waves are real, but the pictures are not. They are computer picutres of what scientists THINK, they just THINK, the radio waves are. It's basicly a fantasy!

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.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.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.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.BTW, grow the fuck up. There is no reason to attempt to be abusive here, it just makes you sound like a child.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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. WRONG! It is saying that our calculations for universal gravity are wrong, not that the concept is wrong. 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.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.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. Yep. And if only small scales exist (as you claim for the universe) then the Earth is flat, right? I interpret it as saying that Newton's calculations, which he thought were universal, are not. What do you think it means?