Relativity is wrong...

My answers to previous posts are all here...

quote:

---

The best evidence for General Relativity is the binary pulsar system PSR B1913+16 and studying what is called its periapsis precessions.

---

Explain how this is any evidence for GR.

quote:

---

There is no real evidence that inertial motion can be detected. All experiments designed to test if it can be detected have continuously ruled it out to a higher and higher degree and there is no experimental evidence of the aether.

---

This is of course false.

quote:

---

In 1991 Roland De Witte carried out an experiment in Brussels in which variations in the one-way speed of RF waves through a coaxial cable were recorded over 178 days. The data from this experiment shows that De Witte had detected absolute motion of the earth through space, as had six earlier experiments, beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887. His results are in excellent agreement with the extensive data from the Miller 1925/26 detection of absolute motion using a gas-mode Michelson interferometer atop Mt.Wilson, California.

---

The Roland De Witte 1991 Detection of Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves - NASA/ADS

quote:

---

For the trajectories of the particles in the magnetic fields, as well as their trajectories around the accelerator. Also for the dynamics of the magnetic fields themselves.

---

Where does it say that?

quote:

---

Please explain to me how one can measure time without referring to it.

---

It's not an important parameter.

quote:

---

Read it. It extensively describes both the theory of relativity and the Sagnac effect in detail in relation to synchronization of GPS satellites and other phenomena. Relativity and the Sagnac effect ARE NOT mutually exclusive concepts. If so show me how.

---

I already explained how. Now it's up to you to explain why it is not.

quote:

---

And you wonder why people tell you that you are full of shit. I have provided with scientific peer reviewed articles by subject matter experts in the physics fields and you choose to ignore them. This shows your lack of credibility and gullibility to accept any crap from non-scientific sources you find on the internet.

---

No, I didn't ignore it. The stuff you cited agrees with me that it is the Sagnac effect that is used in GPS.

quote:

---

Ditto. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. This is like saying that because Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation does not mention Galileo's free fall experiment w/ gravity than all of Newton's laws are bogus.

---

Yes they are exclusive. You still didn't explain why.

quote:

---

Go get an education at a real college and stop believing every conspiracy theory that comes off the internet.

---

Stop believing in anything you read from "official" sourcs.

quote:

---

I don't know what dime dilation is (is that putting dimes on a railroad track to strech them)? Oh, you mean time dilation? Well, isn't that your whole argument that the Sagnac effect is causing time dilation-like effect that must be taken into account to synchronize the GPS clocks as opposed to Einstein's theories of relativity? If not what the heck are you talking about?

---

No, it's not. You obviously misunderstood everything.

quote:

---

Physicists around the world and engineers of the GPS satellite system take into account both the GR/SR (gravitational induced time dilation) and the Sagnac effect (errors in synchronization caused by rotating frames of reference in this case the Earth) to synchronize the clocks on these satellites to determine accurate positions. If you have a problem with this, go tell the US Navy, US Air Force and the Satellite Engineering Research Corporation, which helped develop the original GPS and follow-on applications, that they are wrong (I would love to be a fly on the wall why I see them laugh you out of the facility). Here is a PP presentation by Dr. Robert Nelson, PhD in Physics, writer of several textbooks on satellite communications and director of the Satellite Engineering Research Corporation in Bethesda, MD for you (pictures, charts and short bullets might be easier for you to swallow):

---

This is an argument from authority. A logical fallacy.

quote:

---

Of course, any attempt to show that the Sagnac effect implies non-isotropic light-speed with respect to some system of inertial coordinates is doomed from the start, because the simple and correct quantitative description of an arbitrary Sagnac device given above is based on isotropic light speed with respect to one particular system of inertial coordinates, and all inertial systems of coordinates are related by Lorentz transformations, which are defined as the transformations that preserve light speed.

---

But the speed of light is NOT preserved! That's the point!

quote:

---

The fundamental fallacy underlying such claims is the idea that the beams of light are travelling the same, or at least congruent, inertial paths through space and time as they proceed from the source to the detector. If this were true, their inertial speeds would indeed need to differ in order for their arrival times at the detector to differ. However, the two pulses do not traverse congruent paths from emission to detector (assuming the device is absolutely rotating).

---

Yes, yes they are! They are traveling the same path. Did the detector get bigger or shorter or something?If you are talking about the two lines that are going in the opposite directions, than no, they are not traveling the same path, obviously. One will come sooner, and one will come later. But the thing is, that when you turn the device in teh other side the SAME light beam is faster that was faster in the previous test.

quote:

---

The author clearly illustrates the logical fallacy in stating that the Sagnac affect implies anisotropic light speeds. You in your stubborn tenacity just choose to ignore it.

---

No, it' syou who doesn't get it!

quote:

---

Ok, a non-peer reviewed article by a former physics professor who was opposed by the entire physics community on his views on relativity. You will always have an oddball out of the bunch that will oppose the status-quo. Not to say that he was not a good scientist but sometimes even scientists can be wrong on his research/findings.

---

Neither was your article peer reviewed, so? Stop with the arguments from authority.

quote:

---

LOL, whatever bub. If you can’t provide any evidence of your own to counter my evidence, than I am writing you off as an ignorant, gullible idiot. I tried being nice but evidently this is lost on you. Have a nice life and have fun with your delusions.

---

Well you must be blind not to see all the links I posted...

quote:

---

Huh? You're not seriously claiming that because the clock has a mechanical "On" switch, that means its method of measuring time is mechanical?

​

Question: Is the functioning of your computer mechanical or electrical? That is, in your computer chip are "gates." They control the flow of electricity. Is this gate mechanical?

​

Now, there is no ether, but there is gravity. So thank you for agreeing that clocks are affected by gravity just as relativity theory predicts. Again, it is affecting the clock not by changing the way it functions but rather by changing the way time flows.

---

The whole computer has mechanical parts. So does the atomic clock which cal be slowed down.

quote:

---

But if you are with the clock, you do not experience time any differently. By your logic, you as an external observer to the clock would notice that the clock was slowing down...unless you're saying that the human sense of time is also mechanically affected.

---

No you woulndn't because the field is acting on you too.

quote:

---

By the very experiment I just described to you: The clock's method of measuring time is not mechanical and therefore is invariant under mechanical shifts such as gravitational fields pulling on it or acceleration.

---

Yes it is mechanical, I showed you a picture of a giant atomic clock.

quote:

---

Suppose you have a photon generator and a detector. You can measure how much time it takes for a photon to leave the generator and reach the detector. You set up an electronic trigger so that when a photon is detected, it triggers the release of the next photon. You have created a kind of clock. Since you know how much time it takes for one photon to travel the distance, by counting the number of photons that have been released, you can calculate how much time has passed.

​

Now, suppose we make two of these contraptions, one of which we leave here on the ground and one of which we send on a journey through space and gravity. When the clock that made the journey returns, we find that it hasn't counted as many photons as the one that stayed here on the ground. And yet, this setup is invariant under motion. The motion of the clock does not change the distance between the generator and detector, right? Be careful as that is a bit of a trick question.

---

And again, this contrapiton you built is mechanical and is affected my gravity and other fields.

quote:

---

Except it does. We can directly measure it. Are you saying there is something wrong in the experiments that were done that measured it?

---

No, I'm saying we are measuring the slowdown of the mechanism itself.

quote:

---

There is no ether. There is gravity, however, and it is affecting the clock, but not by affecting the mechanism. Instead, it is affecting time itself. Our photon clock is not affected by mechanical means. It can only be affected by changes in time and space itself. So adding gravity to the mix and finding that it introduces a discrepancy beyond that of simple motion, we necessarily conclude that gravity changes time and space.

---

Yes there is an aether and absolute motion has been detected through it.The Roland De Witte 1991 Detection of Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves - NASA/ADS

quote:

---

Did you not see your own picture? You really think an oscilliscope is crude?

---

Does it have mechanical parts? Obviously.

Thread copied here from the Relativity is wrong... thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

No you. No you are false. Read this! Science Digest, July 1980What, that your an idiot. Your mama! No, you are unimportant and a rabbit! But I explain why not and how. Now it is your job to explain why I am correct. I didn't ignore it either. My stuff contradicts your stuff. Stop believing stuff from "unofficial" sources. NO YOU DONT'T GET IT! So why don't you believe in a flat earth. Here read my material: Science Digest, July 1980HONESTLY WHY ARE WE ELEVATING THIS STUPIDITY ON THIS BOARD???

---

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

DA, I think I'm in love

Sorry I just finally through up my hands and say WTF.I have a suspension that he is a minute-man internet troll. If not he is a really ignorant and gullible human being. Unfortunately his form of ignorance is endemic to the uneducated and deliberately stupid.

---

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

He's posted heliocentric nonsense on a white supremacist website. He's beyond an idiot - he's a tumor that should be removed from the site. Debating him won't do any good, and racists should have no place here.

I don't think they even really believe the stuff they spew (probably 'cause they don't even understand it either). Its just the same old anti-science debate game. Prove the science to me and disprove the alternate theory. The game is in challenging the challenges. And the ones that cannot be challenged are ignored as they Gish gallop to the next challenge. They can be decent exercise, though, if you want to practice debating styles or something.

links or it didn't happennevermind, I found itAttention Required! | CloudflareEdited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Do you mean geocentric?

lol...yes.

Peer reviewed? who are the peers?I have some uncles that were involved in debating the original representatives of that site back in the early 1940s, needless to say they won the 'debate' even if there are a few scumbags who don't seem to know it yet.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Why has relativity denial suddenly appeared as a popular subject on EvC sites?

Well it's very simple. General Relativity predicts what the periapsis precessions should be and the value it predicts is the exact value observed. You accept one experiment, which when repeated with better equipment by others (Braxmaier et al., (2002)) gave results in support of relativity. Yet you don't accept the several million (yes, million) experiments which support relativity?Edited by Admin, : Fix grammar at beginning of last para.

quote:

---

No you.

---

Why should I be explaining your position?

quote:

---

No you.

---

What a great argument.

quote:

---

Read this!

---

I gave you a PR article, and you give me crap.

quote:

---

What, that your an idiot. Your mama!

---

That is not an argument.

quote:

---

No, you are unimportant and a rabbit!

---

This is not an argument.

quote:

---

But I explain why not and how. Now it is your job to explain why I am correct.

​

Stop believing stuff from "unofficial" sources.

---

You're an idiot, I have no time to waste on you anymore...Go away from my topic.

quote:

---

Well it's very simple. General Relativity predicts what the periapsis precessions should be and the value it predicts is the exact value observed.

---

Links please...

quote:

---

You accept one experiment, which when repeated with better equipment by others (Braxmaier et al., (2002)) gave results in support of relativity. Yet you don't accept the several million (yes, million) experiments which support relativity?

---

It's not one experiments it's lots of experiments that agree with each other. And you would have known that if you actually only read the abstract.Where exactly is the link to the experiment you are describing?