Relativity is wrong...

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not simple. It's simple in the fact that the equations needed to explain the motion of everything in the universe are simple and easy to calculate. The equations we would have to use in your convoluted universe would be messy, all but unintelligible garbage, and would not give us any sort of framework on whcih to say "WHY" anything is happening the way it is. I know you're not trying to show anything, you only asserting things.It doesn't matter if we're perturbed. If we can't see any perturbation, that means any perturbation affects the entire solar system the same way and thus can be factored out. I don't even understand what you're saying here, and it's obvious you don't either. We see light moving at the same speed no matter where we look, whether it's on Earth, on Mars, at the edge of the solar system, or anywhere else. As I said before, it's possible that gravity is not universal, but it's not the most evidenced explanation, nor is it the most parsimonious explanation, so jumping to that as the explanation is unwarranted and holding to it as strongly as you are is crackpottery. You've got it backward again. You're the one advocating for one of the options, I'm the one saying we don't have any reason to jump to that one conclusion. To keep your analogy, we have 100 suspects. One of them matches the DNA at the scene, so we're going to hold to that person, even if there are a couple circumstantial bits of evidence that are ambiguous as to that person's guilt.By contrast, you're pointing the finger at the one person in the line-up with a rock-solid alibi and saying, "it's him, and the evidence be damned!" Um, no. That's what we've learned. Reference frames mean a great deal. We can see that with great speed we get time and length dilation. What we would like is an equation that works for all forces and can be solved for every reference frame: that would be the Super Unified Theory, but rest assured, it will have variables for the reference frame built into it. Yes we are...and you're doing it wrong. If a kid points at a truck and says, "That's a red truck." Do you say, "no, you're wrong, it's red and black and blue and clear and white and silver"? It's not complete, but it's not wrong. It works for the reference frames we commonly see and exist in. Any equation we find that may extend the usefulness will solve down to relativity if we solve for the same reference frames just as relativity solves down to Neton's Laws if we solve for the single reference frame of being on the surface of Earth. Incomplete does not mean wrong. Yeah, but that's a horrible analogy. What you're doing is saying, "2+3=5 is wrong because it doesn't solve for everything in the universe, it's incomplete. It doesn't tell me what 4+99 is, so it can't be right." Again, you're analogy is completely idiotic. You're getting an incorrect solution. OUr equations give us correct solutions for specified scenarios, so for those scenarios, it's complete. WHen we try to extrapolate from those scenarios, we find there are more variables. It's like drug trials. If we find that giving people a drug works for very specific pains, and we market the drug as an analgesic for those pains, is the drug a bad one becaue in 5% of the population it makes the pain worse? No, it works in 95% of the population and should be used, but we should just be aware that if you fall into that 5%, you shouldn't take that drug. We've examined as much of the universe as we can see, and we find that forces stay constant. No area of space is "special" and no area of space behaves differently than any other. Until we find something that breaks this general rule, it's illogical to assume we're looking at one. It's on you to show why we should abandon one of the main tenets of science in general and cosmology/physics specifically. A flawed analogy doesn't get better from repetition, but based on your debate tactics, you'll surely disagree with me there.

quote:

---

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not simple. It's simple in the fact that the equations needed to explain the motion of everything in the universe are simple and easy to calculate. The equations we would have to use in your convoluted universe would be messy, all but unintelligible garbage, and would not give us any sort of framework on whcih to say "WHY" anything is happening the way it is.

---

No. Barbour and Bertotti paper has very simple equations. I have no idea why you are constantly claiming that your model is simpler when it's not. And even if it was, SO WHAT!? Who cares, if its wrong, it's wrong. And it's wrong.

quote:

---

It doesn't matter if we're perturbed. If we can't see any perturbation, that means any perturbation affects the entire solar system the same way and thus can be factored out.

---

But it affects your position relative to distant stars, and other planets.

quote:

---

I don't even understand what you're saying here, and it's obvious you don't either. We see light moving at the same speed no matter where we look, whether it's on Earth, on Mars, at the edge of the solar system, or anywhere else.

---

That would be true if for about 100 years, we didn't know this to be false. The Sagnac experiment has shown that light traweling in one direction is faster than light traveling in another direction. So no, we do not see it traveling at the same speed all the time. Besides, I have talked about this at the start of the topic, but you obviously didn't care to read about it.

quote:

---

As I said before, it's possible that gravity is not universal, but it's not the most evidenced explanation, nor is it the most parsimonious explanation, so jumping to that as the explanation is unwarranted and holding to it as strongly as you are is crackpottery.

---

Really? So you, who did not step one foot from this planet Earth, are going to claim that the gravity is EXACTLY THE SAME IN THE WHOLE UNIVERSE!?!?You're a crackpot! You've never even been anywhere but the Earth!

quote:

---

You've got it backward again. You're the one advocating for one of the options, I'm the one saying we don't have any reason to jump to that one conclusion. To keep your analogy, we have 100 suspects. One of them matches the DNA at the scene, so we're going to hold to that person, even if there are a couple circumstantial bits of evidence that are ambiguous as to that person's guilt.

​

By contrast, you're pointing the finger at the one person in the line-up with a rock-solid alibi and saying, "it's him, and the evidence be damned!"

---

Your analogy is painfully flawed since you never even saw the 99 other suspects. You only saw one suspect, and that is the Earth. And based on this one, you are claiming you already know other 99 are not guilty. Let's even say that people went to the Moon. So what? That's it? You are going to base yyour whole conclusion for the WHOLE UNIVERSE, on one planet an one moon!? You are a joke!

quote:

---

Um, no. That's what we've learned. Reference frames mean a great deal. We can see that with great speed we get time and length dilation. What we would like is an equation that works for all forces and can be solved for every reference frame: that would be the Super Unified Theory, but rest assured, it will have variables for the reference frame built into it.

---

Nobody ever saw time dilate, or lenght contract. This is simply an ad hoc assumption based on the results that did not fit what was supposed to be explained.

quote:

---

Yes we are...and you're doing it wrong. If a kid points at a truck and says, "That's a red truck." Do you say, "no, you're wrong, it's red and black and blue and clear and white and silver"? It's not complete, but it's not wrong. It works for the reference frames we commonly see and exist in. Any equation we find that may extend the usefulness will solve down to relativity if we solve for the same reference frames just as relativity solves down to Neton's Laws if we solve for the single reference frame of being on the surface of Earth. Incomplete does not mean wrong.

---

It's enough to call it red if the majority of it's color is red. It's a good enough of an approximation.

quote:

---

Yeah, but that's a horrible analogy. What you're doing is saying, "2+3=5 is wrong because it doesn't solve for everything in the universe, it's incomplete. It doesn't tell me what 4+99 is, so it can't be right."

---

No, I'm not sayign that. I'm saying that 2+3=4 is false. 2+3=5 is correct. If you want to know what is 4+99 than you should solve the equation to get the result. What you are doing is using a flase equation that gets you the wrong result, and it only gives you the right result under certain circumstances, but you are saying that the equation is correct!

quote:

---

Again, you're analogy is completely idiotic. You're getting an incorrect solution. OUr equations give us correct solutions for specified scenarios, so for those scenarios, it's complete. WHen we try to extrapolate from those scenarios, we find there are more variables. It's like drug trials. If we find that giving people a drug works for very specific pains, and we market the drug as an analgesic for those pains, is the drug a bad one becaue in 5% of the population it makes the pain worse? No, it works in 95% of the population and should be used, but we should just be aware that if you fall into that 5%, you shouldn't take that drug.

---

My equation that says that 2+3=4 is correct is correct in 4/5 of the case. So we just need to tweak it a bit. But it's almost fully corrects, it's just incomplete!

quote:

---

We've examined as much of the universe as we can see, and we find that forces stay constant.

---

No you didn't! You never left the Earth! Seeing the universe does not equal examining it!

quote:

---

No area of space is "special" and no area of space behaves differently than any other.

---

This is an assumption. Why are you claiming this like it's a fact!? For all we know, based on the anisotropic radiation coming from space, we are at the center of the rotating universe.

quote:

---

Until we find something that breaks this general rule, it's illogical to assume we're looking at one. It's on you to show why we should abandon one of the main tenets of science in general and cosmology/physics specifically.

---

LOL! Are you kidding me!? This is not a rule this is an assumption! Why should I not challenge such a stupid idea int he first place!? Earth is special! Look at it! Where do you see such diversity of life anywhere else?

Wrong. Albert Einstein predicted time dilation and length contraction long before these phenomena were detected so they cannot be added adhod if they were predicted before hand. There we have the smoking gun of SO's motive for wanting the Earth to be the center of the Universe after more than 587 posts. If we dig even deeper we will find this to be religiously motivated.The rest of your post SO is typical unsubstantiated rubbish. I am sorry but you are a fucking idiot. If I get suspended for this so be it but somebody has to address the fucking elephant in the room.This post should have been shut down long ago and I am not sure why admin is keeping it open when there are a lot better and more substinative threads that have been closed down long ago.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"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

So this must mean that the region of the earth with the greatest diversity of life should be at the earth's center?--Percy

Of course we do not have the ability to determine if there be another planet like earth in another galaxy in say the Andromeda galaxy that is as diverse and our earth simply do the fact that we do not have instruments capable of seeing something that small, that far away and also the fact that even if we could see that far we would see what was there millions of years ago. The earth is a miniscule planet circling a miniscule star in the arm of an average galaxy somewhere, maybe in the middle, but mostt likely not in the middle, of the visible universe.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since 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

We are, by necessity, in the middle of the visible universe. Just like we'd be in the middle of the "visible ocean" in our little life boats.AbE: Opps! I didn't want to ever post in this thread. Pretend this is somewhere else.AbE2: Bigger opps! I just saw that this is the second time that I've come in behind you and made a comment the might be considered needlessly critical. I didn't mean to be a pest; you're one of my favorite posters.Edited by lyx2no, : OPPS!Edited by lyx2no, : AbE2.

---

It's not the man that knows the most that has the most to say.

no criticality assumed. It just goes to show that 2 people saying the same thing can assume the meaning is different. I should have left out the word visible.ABE} Maybe I should,'t try to think 2 things at once, I am horrible at multitasking.Edited by bluescat48, : clarity

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since 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

quote:

---

So this must mean that the region of the earth with the greatest diversity of life should be at the earth's center?

---

No, the Earth's center, is teh Earth's center. Pure logic...

quote:

---

Of course we do not have the ability to determine if there be another planet like earth in another galaxy in say the Andromeda galaxy that is as diverse and our earth simply do the fact that we do not have instruments capable of seeing something that small

---

Great. Untill you do have such instruments, and above all EVIDENCE, we are going to stick with what we know. And that is that the Earth is special.

quote:

---

that far away and also the fact that even if we could see that far we would see what was there millions of years ago.

---

It's not a fact, it's an assumption. We do not know how far away Andromeda is.

quote:

---

The earth is a miniscule planet circling a miniscule star in the arm of an average galaxy somewhere, maybe in the middle, but mostt likely not in the middle, of the visible universe.

---

Evidence? Do you have any? You are simply saying all those things without supporting them.

No, the diversity of life, is the diversity of life. Pure logic...Or at least the kind of logic required to arrive at your kind of conclusions. --Percy

Hold on there. Where is your evidence that there's a "we"? I'm going to stick with what I know. And that is that there's only me, and I'm the one who's special. The universe rotates around me. Wherever I go, I am always at the centre of everything I see.You, on the other hand, are nothing but electrons in my computer, letters on my screen. You are "Smooth Operator Posts Only". So don't you talk about evidence, because I have the evidence right here in front of me.That's why I'm right, and you are not even wrong.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"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.

Evidence please that the earth is special. As for the miniscule earth, quoted from the following Page not found – SEDS USAEdited by bluescat48, : lost lineEdited by bluescat48, : typ

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since 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

quote:

---

No, the diversity of life, is the diversity of life. Pure logic...

​

Or at least the kind of logic required to arrive at your kind of conclusions.

---

Yes, the diversity of life, is the diversity of life. Nothing wrong there.

quote:

---

Hold on there. Where is your evidence that there's a "we"? I'm going to stick with what I know. And that is that there's only me, and I'm the one who's special. The universe rotates around me. Wherever I go, I am always at the centre of everything I see.

​

You, on the other hand, are nothing but electrons in my computer, letters on my screen. You are "Smooth Operator Posts Only". So don't you talk about evidence, because I have the evidence right here in front of me.

---

That's true. But you are now going into philosophy. We are talking about science.We can't actually prove anything. We do not really know the external world outside us is real. But if we are going to do science, we have got to agree that it's there.

quote:

---

Evidence please that the earth is special. As for the miniscule earth,

---

How do they know that? How did they measure our pisition relative to other planets? How do they know, that other stars are light years away?