The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: chuckstables on May 23, 2016, 11:15:18 PM
-
Hello.
I have a few questions that I would appreciate an answer to. My first question ; there is an abundance of empirical support for the theory of general relativity. General relativity extends special relativity by viewing special relativity as a "special" case of general relativity in which there is no energy density that contributes to the deviation of the metric tensor from it's hyperbolic flat norm. As a brief primer of general relativity I'll explain a couple of things. Take a right angled two dimensional coordinate system. Start at the origin. Move in the positive y direction by a very small amount. Move in the positive x direction by a very small amount. Technically the distance you move must be a differential distance, an infinitesimally small quantity which we call dy and dx respectively, with dy being the infinitesimal distance you move in the y direction and dx being the infinitesimally small distance you move in the x direction. The total distance traveled is now the length of a hypotenuse of a right triangle. In flat euclidean space the length of this hypoteneuse, the total distance traveled will be the square root of a*dx^2 + b*dy^2, where a and b are constants. If we decide to measure the x axis in meters and the y axis in units of 2 meters, then a will be 1/2 and b will be 1. However, if a and b are not constants and are instead functions of the coordinates themselves, then things get interesting. However if we zoom in close enough the space will be LOCALLY EUCLIDEAN. This is because any function of the coordinates changes by an infinitely small amount if you look at infinitely small changes in coordinates, and thus it is constant over such infinitesimally small scales. This means that as you move a finite distance your meter stick also changes; the way that distance is measured fundamentally changes. Now, if we have a coordinate system in which the coordinate axes are not at right angles to each other, then the total distance is also determined by cross terms, c*dx*dy + d*dy*dx. This can be determined with simple trig, we now impose the reality that c and d must be equal, otherwise you have an asymmetric space in which distance is an ill-defined mathematical concept. Therefore in any arbitrary two dimensional space we have that ds^2, which is the infinitesimal length traveled, = a(x,y)*dx^2 + b(x,y)*dy^2 + 2c(x,y)*dx*dy. We now arrange all of these functions a(x,y), b(x,y), and c(x,y) in something called a metric tensor which is a two by two matrix in our case. We denote this matrix with the term G(ij), where is the column and j is the row. G(x,x) would be a(x,y), G(x,y) and G(y,x) would be c(x,y) and G(y,y) would be b(x,y). There is something called the Euler Lagrange equation, which is a system of partial differential equations whose solutions yield "functionals" (like that length function I just gave you) that are minimized. In this case our functionals are lengths of a curve through space (with two dimensions, you would get two functions, giving x and y as functions of length traveled). Ultimately the euler lagrange equations transform into the geodesic equation, whose solutions give you the shortest path between two points given the metric tensor G(ij).
Now, we apply the same thing to space-time. In this case Einstein proposed that the Einstein tensor equals a constant times the stress energy tensor. The stress energy tensor is a symmetric tensor that tells you the distribution of energy in space. The Einstein tensor is built from several other tensors and functions of the metric tensor. Specifically it includes the ricci curvature scalar multiplied by the metric tensor and the ricci curvature tensor. Both are built from derivatives of the metric tensor, making this a system of non linear partial differential equations whose solutions are the functions that make up the metric tensor (they are nearly impossible to solve though, analytical solutions exist in a few cases). Once you have those you just have to solve the geodesic equation and you have your path through space time, which explains gravity.
Now there is an ABUNDANCE of evidence supporting general relativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity . Do you genuinely believe that all of these have been faked? If so, what is the purpose of doing so? What is the purpose of pretending that the earth is round anyhow? I mean really? What benefit do scientists have to gain from lying about the shape of the earth? If the earth was flat then that would've become what we know to be true, since that is the goal of science, the same science that has given you these computers, allowed you to eat plentifully and live long lives. Not only this but relativistic effects are present in your transistors that run your computer, they had to be accounted for in order to make your computer run. A major test of GR has been known for a century now. The highest point of the orbit of Mercury changes. It moves around in a circle. This effect was predicted by Newton's theory as a result of the perturbing effect of the rest of the planets on it's orbit, this results in a deviation from inverse square forces, which cause such procession. However the predicted procession was off by 48.5 arc seconds per century, the experimental error at the time for this measurement was 1/5th of an arc second, so it's clearly a significant deviation. The probability of it being random error is on the order of 10^-500 at the time. One of the useful analytical solutions to the einstein field equations in that of a point mass non rotating un-charged black hole. This can be used to model any spherically symmetric body outside of the bodies radius, since such a body acts as a point mass black hole outside of it's radius. On the inside it acts much differently, the metric to use in that case is that found by solving the relativistic hydrostatic equilibrium equations and using that to model the stress energy tensor, and then solving that. Using this metric we can generate leading order power series calculations of the per orbit procession, and it is exactly what we observe, 48.5 arc seconds per century. To date it remains one of the most accurate predictions in all of physics. If you genuinely believe that scientists such as myself would fake such results, then you are unfortunately delusional. I have no reason to do so. My colleagues have no reason to do so. No scientist has any reason to do so. Is it a satanic conspiracy?
-
There is no such thing as general relativity/space-time continuum.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65085.msg1736864#msg1736864
The most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:
http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html
HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:
http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)
Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.
Dr. Maurice Allais, Nobel prize winner, offers further details on how the 1919 GR data was TOTALLY FAKED:
http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/Einstein1.htm
There can be no clearer definition of scientific fraud than what went on in the Tropics on May 29, 1919. What is particularly clear is that Eddington fudged the solar eclipse data to make the results conform to "Einstein's" work on general relativity. Poor (1930), Brown (1967), Clark (1984) and McCausland (2001) all address the issues surrounding this eclipse.
The speed of light is not constant: the original set of J.C. Maxwell ether equations
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1639521#msg1639521
-
Don't believe everything you read.
-
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.
-
Explain why the equivalence principle only applies to a local experiment?
Also
We all know the Satanist authorities place clues to their true nature, in speeches, on money, and so on, in order to play tricks with the ignorant masses.
I have found yet another in the logo of NASA:
(http://i.imgur.com/KRh5UzQ.jpg)
Looks normal, right? Well, can you see the red V? Here it is flipped 90 degrees:
(http://i.imgur.com/tVg5d76.jpg)
Actually rotated clockwise 120º
Dumb people think 90º is the same as different.
ignorant masses, your words.
120º also happens to be the number of degrees each phase is out of phase from each other in a 3 phase electrical system. Could this be a subtle hint to link Tesla, the father of 3 phase electricity, with this criminal Satanic organization?
-
Explain why the equivalence principle only applies to a local experiment?
Also
We all know the Satanist authorities place clues to their true nature, in speeches, on money, and so on, in order to play tricks with the ignorant masses.
I have found yet another in the logo of NASA:
(http://i.imgur.com/KRh5UzQ.jpg)
Looks normal, right? Well, can you see the red V? Here it is flipped 90 degrees:
(http://i.imgur.com/tVg5d76.jpg)
Actually rotated clockwise 120º
Dumb people think 90º is the same as different.
ignorant masses, your words.
120º also happens to be the number of degrees each phase is out of phase from each other in a 3 phase electrical system. Could this be a subtle hint to link Tesla, the father of 3 phase electricity, with this criminal Satanic organization?
Was that a misquote? Perhaps you meant to quote someone who was actually talking about that?
-
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.
Can you please cite which parts of GR you believe support a flat earth model please.
Thanks.
-
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.
Can you please cite which parts of GR you believe support a flat earth model please.
Thanks.
All of it. Do you have something to cite that does not support FET?
-
Gravitational lensing: Light around a massive object, such as a black hole, is bent, causing it to act as a lens for the things that lie behind it. Astronomers routinely use this method to study stars and galaxies behind massive objects.
Einstein's Cross, a quasar in the Pegasus constellation, is an excellent example of gravitational lensing. The quasar is about 8 billion light-years from Earth, and sits behind a galaxy that is 400 million light-years away. Four images of the quasar appear around the galaxy because the intense gravity of the galaxy bends the light coming from the quasar.
- See more at: http://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html#sthash.5qBMSt8u.dpuf
Gravity doesn't work as GR sets it out on a flat stationary earth.
Einstein's theory has important astrophysical implications. For example, it implies the existence of black holes—regions of space in which space and time are distorted in such a way that nothing, not even light, can escape—as an end-state for massive stars. There is ample evidence that the intense radiation emitted by certain kinds of astronomical objects is due to black holes; for example, microquasars and active galactic nuclei result from the presence of stellar black holes and black holes of a much more massive type, respectively. The bending of light by gravity can lead to the phenomenon of gravitational lensing, in which multiple images of the same distant astronomical object are visible in the sky. General relativity also predicts the existence of gravitational waves, which have since been observed directly by physics collaboration LIGO. In addition, general relativity is the basis of current cosmological models of a consistently expanding universe.
I'm not sure where you're getting flat, geocentric earth from this but I'm sure reading round heliocentric earth.
If Einstein was right the earth has to be spherical as defined by gravitys laws of attraction, also the earth has to be orbiting the sun due to the suns gravitational domination of our solar system due to its mass.
What were you saying?
-
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.
Can you please cite which parts of GR you believe support a flat earth model please.
Thanks.
All of it. Do you have something to cite that does not support FET?
Only because something does not directly contradict FET, it does not mean that it supports FET.
-
Gravity doesn't work as GR sets it out on a flat stationary earth.
Why, just because you and sokarul say so? If you people say that there are fairies living in the woods in my back yard, then it must be true just because you said it, right? You really have a high opinion of yourself, do you not? ::)
-
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.
Can you please cite which parts of GR you believe support a flat earth model please.
Thanks.
All of it. Do you have something to cite that does not support FET?
Only because something does not directly contradict FET, it does not mean that it supports FET.
Gold star for you. You actually almost made a point with your statement.
-
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.
General relativity (GR) is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Albert Einstein between 1907 and 1915. According to general relativity, the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from the warping of space and time by those masses. General relativity has developed into an essential tool in modern astrophysics. It provides the foundation for the current understanding of black holes, regions of space where gravitational attraction is so strong that not even light can escape
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#General_relativity_and_the_equivalence_principle (http://wiki)
Gravity is inconsistent with FE.
-
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.
General relativity (GR) is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Albert Einstein between 1907 and 1915. According to general relativity, the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from the warping of space and time by those masses. General relativity has developed into an essential tool in modern astrophysics. It provides the foundation for the current understanding of black holes, regions of space where gravitational attraction is so strong that not even light can escape
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#General_relativity_and_the_equivalence_principle (http://wiki)
Gravity is inconsistent with FE.
Wow, in your attempt to save your fellow roundy who was beaten down for ignorance, you have constructed the perfect defense. Oh, wait, you just made an unfounded claim. My bad. ::)
-
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.
General relativity (GR) is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Albert Einstein between 1907 and 1915. According to general relativity, the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from the warping of space and time by those masses. General relativity has developed into an essential tool in modern astrophysics. It provides the foundation for the current understanding of black holes, regions of space where gravitational attraction is so strong that not even light can escape
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#General_relativity_and_the_equivalence_principle (http://wiki)
Gravity is inconsistent with FE.
So not just me and sokarul then jroa.
Please show us where you believe GR supports a flat earth model, it is much easier to tear people down than to build yourself up, don't be caught in a lesser path.
-
Okay, jroa, enlighten us. My thoughts are:
General relativity expands newtonian gravity, i.e. newtonian gravity is a special case in GR.
Newtonian gravity contradicts the theory of the earth as a finite plane (credits to John Davis, an infinite plane is still consistent with gravity).
Therefore, general relativity contradicts the theory of a finite plane.
Where exactly am I wrong?
-
Okay, jroa, enlighten us. My thoughts are:
General relativity expands newtonian gravity, i.e. newtonian gravity is a special case in GR.
Newtonian gravity contradicts the theory of the earth as a finite plane (credits to John Davis, an infinite plane is still consistent with gravity).
Therefore, general relativity contradicts the theory of a finite plane.
Where exactly am I wrong?
Saying an infinite plane is still consistent with gravity, I don't even want to start on how wrong that is, I guess the logical paradox can be resolved through the firmament and the sun and other celestial bodies not being physical objects.
Universal Gravitation Equation
The Universal Gravitation Equation is:
F = GMm/R2
where
F is the force of attraction between two objects in newtons (N)G is the Universal Gravitational Constant = 6.674*10−11 N-m2/kg2M and m are the masses of the two objects in kilograms (kg)R is the separation in meters (m) between the objects, as measured from their centers of massForce attracting Earth and Moon
To calculate the gravitational force pulling the Earth and Moon together, you need to know their separation and the mass of each object.
Distance
The Earth and Moon are approximately 3.844*105 kilometers apart, center to center. Since the units of G are in meters, you need to change the units of separation to meters.
R = 3.844*108 m
Mass of each object
Let M be the mass of the Earth and m the mass of the Moon.
M = 5.974*1024 kg
m = 7.349*1022 kg
Force of attraction
Thus, the force of attraction between the Earth and Moon is:
F = GMm/R2
F = (6.674*10−11 N-m2/kg2)(5.974*1024 kg)(7.349*1022 kg)/(3.844*108 m)2
F = (2.930*1037 N-m2)/(1.478*1017 m2)
F = 1.982*1020 N
Note: Notice how all the units, except N, canceled out.
So if we were to substitute the earths mass with infinity how would gravity work the same way?
-
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.
General relativity (GR) is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Albert Einstein between 1907 and 1915. According to general relativity, the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from the warping of space and time by those masses. General relativity has developed into an essential tool in modern astrophysics. It provides the foundation for the current understanding of black holes, regions of space where gravitational attraction is so strong that not even light can escape
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#General_relativity_and_the_equivalence_principle (http://wiki)
Gravity is inconsistent with FE.
So not just me and sokarul then jroa.
Please show us where you believe GR supports a flat earth model, it is much easier to tear people down than to build yourself up, don't be caught in a lesser path.
You have still not provided a single case in which relativity contradicts FET. If you can't support your claims, then please stay out of the debate section. This forum is for the big kids.
-
Okay, jroa, enlighten us. My thoughts are:
General relativity expands newtonian gravity, i.e. newtonian gravity is a special case in GR.
Newtonian gravity contradicts the theory of the earth as a finite plane (credits to John Davis, an infinite plane is still consistent with gravity).
Therefore, general relativity contradicts the theory of a finite plane.
Where exactly am I wrong?
General Relativity contradicts Newtonian Physics. Have you ever actually studied science, or do you find it more gratifying to just make up stuff as you go? I am trying to figure you out.
-
If the earth was an infinite plane with a set thickness the gravitational attraction towards the infinite sides would all sum to zero. But the gravitational force downwards could still be G=1. If this where true, we would be able to measure earths thickness if we had information on its density.
In a infinite plane world we would see gravity behave more similar than what is seen today compared to the universal acceleration hypothesis.
I don't know why this is not favoured over universal acceleration.
-
Okay, jroa, enlighten us. My thoughts are:
General relativity expands newtonian gravity, i.e. newtonian gravity is a special case in GR.
Newtonian gravity contradicts the theory of the earth as a finite plane (credits to John Davis, an infinite plane is still consistent with gravity).
Therefore, general relativity contradicts the theory of a finite plane.
Where exactly am I wrong?
Saying an infinite plane is still consistent with gravity, I don't even want to start on how wrong that is, I guess the logical paradox can be resolved through the firmament and the sun and other celestial bodies not being physical objects.
Universal Gravitation Equation
The Universal Gravitation Equation is:
F = GMm/R2
where
F is the force of attraction between two objects in newtons (N)G is the Universal Gravitational Constant = 6.674*10−11 N-m2/kg2M and m are the masses of the two objects in kilograms (kg)R is the separation in meters (m) between the objects, as measured from their centers of massForce attracting Earth and Moon
To calculate the gravitational force pulling the Earth and Moon together, you need to know their separation and the mass of each object.
Distance
The Earth and Moon are approximately 3.844*105 kilometers apart, center to center. Since the units of G are in meters, you need to change the units of separation to meters.
R = 3.844*108 m
Mass of each object
Let M be the mass of the Earth and m the mass of the Moon.
M = 5.974*1024 kg
m = 7.349*1022 kg
Force of attraction
Thus, the force of attraction between the Earth and Moon is:
F = GMm/R2
F = (6.674*10−11 N-m2/kg2)(5.974*1024 kg)(7.349*1022 kg)/(3.844*108 m)2
F = (2.930*1037 N-m2)/(1.478*1017 m2)
F = 1.982*1020 N
Note: Notice how all the units, except N, canceled out.
So if we were to substitute the earths mass with infinity how would gravity work the same way?
The problem in using this formula is that you assume that those masses (earth and moon) are concentrated in a single point, which is normally acceptable, since the distance between these masses are huge compared to the size of the objects.
But if you actually approximate the earth as a set of disks whose diameter increases up to inifinity, you actually receive a finite, downwards gravity. I am not saying that this enables a complete solar system etc., but an infinite plane actually generates a finite gravitational pull.
-
Okay, jroa, enlighten us. My thoughts are:
General relativity expands newtonian gravity, i.e. newtonian gravity is a special case in GR.
Newtonian gravity contradicts the theory of the earth as a finite plane (credits to John Davis, an infinite plane is still consistent with gravity).
Therefore, general relativity contradicts the theory of a finite plane.
Where exactly am I wrong?
General Relativity contradicts Newtonian Physics. Have you ever actually studied science, or do you find it more gratifying to just make up stuff as you go? I am trying to figure you out.
Funny, as I am right now studying for a lecture in general relativity. GR does not contradict Newtonian Physics, it extends them. If you assume a small amount of gravity (meaning the terms of order greater than one in the einstein field equations are considered to be zero), you recieve newtonian gravitation.
"The linearised Einstein field equations (linearised EFE) are an approximation to Einstein's field equations that is valid for a weak gravitational field and is used to simplify many problems in general relativity and to discuss the phenomena of gravitational radiation. The approximation can also be used to derive Newtonian gravity as the weak-field approximation of Einsteinian gravity.", taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearized_gravity#Linearised_Einstein_field_equations
-
General Relativity contradicts Newtonian Physics
Please explain exactly how it contradicts Newtonian physics?
You have still not provided a single case in which relativity contradicts FET
General Relativity is a theory of gravity that helped form the description of black holes.
Gravity, unless it is applied to the Infinite plane earth hypothesis is in contradiction to the flat earth hypothesis
-
Okay, jroa, enlighten us. My thoughts are:
General relativity expands newtonian gravity, i.e. newtonian gravity is a special case in GR.
Newtonian gravity contradicts the theory of the earth as a finite plane (credits to John Davis, an infinite plane is still consistent with gravity).
Therefore, general relativity contradicts the theory of a finite plane.
Where exactly am I wrong?
General Relativity contradicts Newtonian Physics. Have you ever actually studied science, or do you find it more gratifying to just make up stuff as you go? I am trying to figure you out.
Funny, as I am right now studying for a lecture in general relativity. GR does not contradict Newtonian Physics, it extends them. If you assume a small amount of gravity (meaning the terms of order greater than one in the einstein field equations are considered to be zero), you recieve newtonian gravitation.
"The linearised Einstein field equations (linearised EFE) are an approximation to Einstein's field equations that is valid for a weak gravitational field and is used to simplify many problems in general relativity and to discuss the phenomena of gravitational radiation. The approximation can also be used to derive Newtonian gravity as the weak-field approximation of Einsteinian gravity.", taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearized_gravity#Linearised_Einstein_field_equations
I sure hope you are not the one giving the lecture. If by "extends" you mean that it attempts to fix all of the errors in the Newtonian Theory, then sure, it extends on it. It attempts to plug the holes, correct all of the wrong calculations that physicists get, and offer an explanation to correct the definition of "gravity". I sure hope you do a lot more studying before you receive this lecture, so you have some idea about the what the lecturer is saying.
-
Okay, jroa, enlighten us. My thoughts are:
General relativity expands newtonian gravity, i.e. newtonian gravity is a special case in GR.
Newtonian gravity contradicts the theory of the earth as a finite plane (credits to John Davis, an infinite plane is still consistent with gravity).
Therefore, general relativity contradicts the theory of a finite plane.
Where exactly am I wrong?
General Relativity contradicts Newtonian Physics. Have you ever actually studied science, or do you find it more gratifying to just make up stuff as you go? I am trying to figure you out.
Funny, as I am right now studying for a lecture in general relativity. GR does not contradict Newtonian Physics, it extends them. If you assume a small amount of gravity (meaning the terms of order greater than one in the einstein field equations are considered to be zero), you recieve newtonian gravitation.
"The linearised Einstein field equations (linearised EFE) are an approximation to Einstein's field equations that is valid for a weak gravitational field and is used to simplify many problems in general relativity and to discuss the phenomena of gravitational radiation. The approximation can also be used to derive Newtonian gravity as the weak-field approximation of Einsteinian gravity.", taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearized_gravity#Linearised_Einstein_field_equations
I sure hope you are not the one giving the lecture. If by "extends" you mean that it attempts to fix all of the errors in the Newtonian Theory, then sure, it extends on it. It attempts to plug the holes, correct all of the wrong calculations that physicists get, and offer an explanation to correct the definition of "gravity". I sure hope you do a lot more studying before you receive this lecture, so you have some idea about the what the lecturer is saying.
No I am not the one giving the lecture, else I would not need to study for it.
By "extends" I mean it in the way as special relativity extends newtonian mechanics. Here, on earth, newtonian mechanics are completely sufficient, as we normally move quite slower than light. However, if you want very, very precise results or want to observe something moving at really high speeds (like in particle accelerators), you need to extend newtonian mechanics by special relativity. The same thing holds true for general relativity. Those "wrong calculations" were very slight derivations in the orbit of mercury. If you want to be one hundred percent precise, yes, newtonian gravity is wrong. But for almost every calculation that tolerates even the slightest error, you do not need to invoke general relativity.
TLDR: Newtonian gravity is an approximation to GR, you might receive small errors in your calculations, but normally they are neglible.
-
In conditions not approaching relativistic speeds, please explain
all of the errors in the Newtonian Theory
Then you can swiftly explain exactly how GR contradicts Newtonian physics?
plug the holes
correct all of the wrong calculations
are not explanations, those are vague claims.
-
Okay, jroa, enlighten us. My thoughts are:
General relativity expands newtonian gravity, i.e. newtonian gravity is a special case in GR.
Newtonian gravity contradicts the theory of the earth as a finite plane (credits to John Davis, an infinite plane is still consistent with gravity).
Therefore, general relativity contradicts the theory of a finite plane.
Where exactly am I wrong?
General Relativity contradicts Newtonian Physics. Have you ever actually studied science, or do you find it more gratifying to just make up stuff as you go? I am trying to figure you out.
Funny, as I am right now studying for a lecture in general relativity. GR does not contradict Newtonian Physics, it extends them. If you assume a small amount of gravity (meaning the terms of order greater than one in the einstein field equations are considered to be zero), you recieve newtonian gravitation.
"The linearised Einstein field equations (linearised EFE) are an approximation to Einstein's field equations that is valid for a weak gravitational field and is used to simplify many problems in general relativity and to discuss the phenomena of gravitational radiation. The approximation can also be used to derive Newtonian gravity as the weak-field approximation of Einsteinian gravity.", taken from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearized_gravity#Linearised_Einstein_field_equations
I sure hope you are not the one giving the lecture. If by "extends" you mean that it attempts to fix all of the errors in the Newtonian Theory, then sure, it extends on it. It attempts to plug the holes, correct all of the wrong calculations that physicists get, and offer an explanation to correct the definition of "gravity". I sure hope you do a lot more studying before you receive this lecture, so you have some idea about the what the lecturer is saying.
No I am not the one giving the lecture, else I would not need to study for it.
By "extends" I mean it in the way as special relativity extends newtonian mechanics. Here, on earth, newtonian mechanics are completely sufficient, as we normally move quite slower than light. However, if you want very, very precise results or want to observe something moving at really high speeds (like in particle accelerators), you need to extend newtonian mechanics by special relativity. The same thing holds true for general relativity. Those "wrong calculations" were very slight derivations in the orbit of mercury. If you want to be one hundred percent precise, yes, newtonian gravity is wrong. But for almost every calculation that tolerates even the slightest error, you do not need to invoke general relativity.
TLDR: Newtonian gravity is an approximation to GR, you might receive small errors in your calculations, but normally they are neglible.
Oh, so by "extend" upon something, you did not mean that it attempts to correct its errors. Oh, wait, yeah that is what you did say. You are the most confusing roundy ever.
-
Great. So jroa, it seems your issue about Newtonian gravity and General relativity is the slight corrections under specific circumstances.
So no change to how we see gravity in the Round Earth Model.
Can I ask then how does GR support a none infinite edge flat earth model?
-
Great. So jroa, it seems your issue about Newtonian gravity and General relativity is the slight corrections under specific circumstances.
So no change to how we see gravity in the Round Earth Model.
Can I ask then how does GR support a none infinite edge flat earth model?
"Slight corrections" is a relative term. I think a good adult level science class might help clear things up for you.
-
Yes, it does correct the errors of newtonian gravity. Only, these errors are so small, that for almost every calculation (including the moon landings, if you believe they are real), newtonian gravity completely suffices (the only case (to my knowledge) where general relativity was involved by constructing something were the GPS-satellites, also you don't believe in them either). Normally the errors caused by these "wrong" formula are way smaller than the errors you get by imperfect measurement etc. So, if you allow an error of, say, 1%, newtonian gravity is still correct in our solar system. Now flat earth theory is still not consistent with newtonian gravity if you allow an error of 1%.
Another question: GR was detected by small errors in the orbit of mercury and partly verified by gravitational lensing. You do neither believe in a heliocentric model nor in gravitational lensing, why do you believe in general relativity?
-
Another question: GR was detected by small errors in the orbit of mercury and partly verified by gravitational lensing. You do neither believe in a heliocentric model nor in gravitational lensing, why do you believe in general relativity?
No, both of those things were attributed to gravity, but no other options were ever explored. Really, is this the best you can do?
-
but no other options were ever explored
citation needed
You have not yet shown how Newtonian gravity contradicts General relativity.
How does GR support a none infinite edge flat earth model?
-
but no other options were ever explored
citation needed
You have not yet shown how Newtonian gravity contradicts General relativity.
How does GR support a none infinite edge flat earth model?
You must be confused. Everyone here, so far, has admitted that GR was developed to correct Newtonian Physics, not expand on it, except you. Even that Kami guy finally started to agree with me. You are the only stubborn one left.
-
contradiction
A contradiction is two propositions used in combination where one makes the other impossible. It is something that is A and non-A at the same time. A contradiction, therefore, cannot exist in reality, since existence exists (whereas a contradiction could not possibly exist). In the cognitive process, reaching a contradiction as a conclusion or evaluation of reality is proof of an error in one's thinking.
In the day to day usage of Newtonian physics and General relativity, the difference in accuracy is between the two is too small to notice.
If you used Newtonian physics or General relativity to do calculations for supersonic jet fighters, any construction, or even moon landings, your result will be so close, that they will make no difference.
Yes, there is a difference. But the difference is so small that for only special circumstances does it mean anything. It has no bearing on the way gravity pulls on the earth. Or how the earth would have formed.
So back to my question that you keep avoiding, how does General Relativity allow for a none infinite flat plane earth?
-
but no other options were ever explored
citation needed
You have not yet shown how Newtonian gravity contradicts General relativity.
How does GR support a none infinite edge flat earth model?
You must be confused. Everyone here, so far, has admitted that GR was developed to correct Newtonian Physics, not expand on it, except you. Even that Kami guy finally started to agree with me. You are the only stubborn one left.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/expand (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/expand)
verb (used with object)
1.
to increase in extent, size, volume, scope, etc.:
Heat expands most metals. He hopes to expand his company.
2.
to spread or stretch out; unfold:
A bird expands its wings.
3.
to express in fuller form or greater detail; develop:
to expand a short story into a novel.
4.
Mathematics.
to write (a mathematical expression) so as to show the products of its factors.
Compare factor (def 10).
to rewrite (a mathematical expression) as a sum, product, etc., of terms of a particular kind:
to expand a function in a power series.
I think this is what he means by expanding. Small errors is corrected by expressing it in a more complete form, i.e. expanding it. One could say that they expanded it, in order to correct errors.
-
Sorry to intervene, but I still see it as an expansion, since on the small scale newtonian gravity still holds. I would rather say that newtonian gravity is incomplete, not incorrect.
You, on the other hand, are claiming that GR was based on entirely wrong assumptions (heliocentric solar system), yet still is somehow correct.
-
contradiction
A contradiction is two propositions used in combination where one makes the other impossible. It is something that is A and non-A at the same time. A contradiction, therefore, cannot exist in reality, since existence exists (whereas a contradiction could not possibly exist). In the cognitive process, reaching a contradiction as a conclusion or evaluation of reality is proof of an error in one's thinking.
In the day to day usage of Newtonian physics and General relativity, the difference in accuracy is between the two is too small to notice. As in, if you used Newtonian physics or General relativity to do calculations for supersonic jet fighters, any construction, or even moon landings, your result will be so close, that they will make no difference. Yes, there is a difference, so you are technically correct that they do contradict. But the difference is so small that for only very special circumstances does mean anything.
So back to my question that you keep avoiding, how does General Relativity allow for a none infinite flat plane earth?
You seem to be avoiding the definition of the term Relative. You keep insisting that we only calculate things like cars driving down the street or jet fighters. Do you not realize that this is a very localized narrow range? Take a physics class and get back to us on what percentage of things in the universe happen at this relative scale.
-
Sorry to intervene, but I still see it as an expansion, since on the small scale newtonian gravity still holds. I would rather say that newtonian gravity is incomplete, not incorrect.
You, on the other hand, are claiming that GR was based on entirely wrong assumptions (heliocentric solar system), yet still is somehow correct.
Do you seriously think that there are degrees of being incorrect? You seem to think that some things are more incorrect than other things. Do you not realize the "incorrect" means "incorrect"?
-
Sorry to intervene, but I still see it as an expansion, since on the small scale newtonian gravity still holds. I would rather say that newtonian gravity is incomplete, not incorrect.
You, on the other hand, are claiming that GR was based on entirely wrong assumptions (heliocentric solar system), yet still is somehow correct.
Do you seriously think that there are degrees of being incorrect? You seem to think that some things are more incorrect than other things. Do you not realize the "incorrect" means "incorrect"?
Well, by your definition, everything is incorrect then, since we can never describe a process that is 100% the same in reality, we always build models, simplify things and disregard things that produce only a small error. For example, if you calculate gas mileage for a driving car, you do not calculate the coriolis force or the force applied by electromagnetic induction (moving electric charge [car battery] through a magnet field [earth's]), simply because these effects do not really matter. By your definition, these calculations would be wrong, then.
-
jroa, your bouncing around the question. How does general relativity side with a flat earth?
-
Sorry to intervene, but I still see it as an expansion, since on the small scale newtonian gravity still holds. I would rather say that newtonian gravity is incomplete, not incorrect.
You, on the other hand, are claiming that GR was based on entirely wrong assumptions (heliocentric solar system), yet still is somehow correct.
Do you seriously think that there are degrees of being incorrect? You seem to think that some things are more incorrect than other things. Do you not realize the "incorrect" means "incorrect"?
Well, by your definition, everything is incorrect then, since we can never describe a process that is 100% the same in reality, we always build models, simplify things and disregard things that produce only a small error. For example, if you calculate gas mileage for a driving car, you do not calculate the coriolis force or the force applied by electromagnetic induction (moving electric charge [car battery] through a magnet field [earth's]), simply because these effects do not really matter. By your definition, these calculations would be wrong, then.
If you were to claim that the sky is green, and then I stated that it is blue, I am not extending your claim, I am countering it. Why are you having such a hard time understanding this?
-
Because it is more like me saying the sky is blue and you saying the sky is in fact marine blue.
-
Jroa, can you answer how general relativity helps prove a flat earth?
Its the main topic I believe.
-
Because it is more like me saying the sky is blue and you saying the sky is in fact marine blue.
So, if we were to flip a coin, and after it lands, you claim that it is heads, but I say that it is tails, then I am extending your claim? I am trying to sort out your logic.
-
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.
Still waiting for jroa to stop derailing and justify his claim.
-
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.
Still waiting for jroa to stop derailing and justify his claim.
Have you even studied Special Relativity?
-
Have you even studied Special Relativity?
Done some reading. Not sure if it can be called "studied" though. Does not matter, if your a pro at it I'm sure you can explain it to a layman.
But the question involved general relativity, not special relativity which is a similar but different topic.
-
Have you even studied Special Relativity?
Done some reading. Not sure if it can be called "studied" though. Does not matter, if your a pro at it I'm sure you can explain it to a layman.
But the question involved general relativity, not special relativity which is a similar but different topic.
So, then, your question is kind of moot, then?
-
Nothing in special or general relativity supports a flat earth.
-
"So, then, your question is kind of moot, then? "
No it is not.
You made a claim, and I am asking you to substantiate it.
And if your smarter than me, then it should be no trouble for you to simplify your explanations.
But I am sure I will be able to keep up.
Further, this is a public forum, meaning, even if I do not understand, other people are reading and learning. You are not just talking to me.
-
"So, then, your question is kind of moot, then? "
No it is not.
You made a claim, and I am asking you to substantiate it.
And if your smarter than me, then it should be no trouble for you to simplify your explanations.
But I am sure I will be able to keep up.
Further, this is a public forum, meaning, even if I do not understand, other people are reading and learning. You are not just talking to me.
Okay, let me try to explain. General relativity is based on the einstein equivalence principle, which states that you can not tell the difference whether you are in a point where there is no gravity or whether you are in free fall in a homogenous gravitational field. Whoops. I mentioned gravity. Seems like it has to exist in order for general relativity to be legit.
-
Nothing in special or general relativity supports a flat earth.
Please point out the contradictions.
-
Nothing in special or general relativity supports a flat earth.
Please point out the contradictions.
Just did. Literally one post before.
-
"So, then, your question is kind of moot, then? "
No it is not.
You made a claim, and I am asking you to substantiate it.
And if your smarter than me, then it should be no trouble for you to simplify your explanations.
But I am sure I will be able to keep up.
Further, this is a public forum, meaning, even if I do not understand, other people are reading and learning. You are not just talking to me.
If you think that GR does not support FET, then please, by all means, present your case for us to examine.
-
"So, then, your question is kind of moot, then? "
No it is not.
You made a claim, and I am asking you to substantiate it.
And if your smarter than me, then it should be no trouble for you to simplify your explanations.
But I am sure I will be able to keep up.
Further, this is a public forum, meaning, even if I do not understand, other people are reading and learning. You are not just talking to me.
Okay, let me try to explain. General relativity is based on the einstein equivalence principle, which states that you can not tell the difference whether you are in a point where there is no gravity or whether you are in free fall in a homogenous gravitational field. Whoops. I mentioned gravity. Seems like it has to exist in order for general relativity to be legit.
So, you have never taken into account that something other than "gravity" could cause any variations? Yeah, you seem like a real scientist to me. ::)
-
Oh come on. You got distracted by that?
How goes general relativity support a flat earth?
Here, Ill give this to help you.
General relativity was Einstein’s theory of gravity, published in 1915, which extended special relativity to take into account non-inertial frames of reference — areas that are accelerating with respect to each other. General relativity takes the form of field equations, describing the curvature of space-time and the distribution of matter throughout space-time. The effects of matter and space-time on each other are what we perceive as gravity.
simple explanation (http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-general-relativity-theory-gravity-as-geo.html)
-
"So, then, your question is kind of moot, then? "
No it is not.
You made a claim, and I am asking you to substantiate it.
And if your smarter than me, then it should be no trouble for you to simplify your explanations.
But I am sure I will be able to keep up.
Further, this is a public forum, meaning, even if I do not understand, other people are reading and learning. You are not just talking to me.
Okay, let me try to explain. General relativity is based on the einstein equivalence principle, which states that you can not tell the difference whether you are in a point where there is no gravity or whether you are in free fall in a homogenous gravitational field. Whoops. I mentioned gravity. Seems like it has to exist in order for general relativity to be legit.
So, you have never taken into account that something other than "gravity" could cause any variations? Yeah, you seem like a real scientist to me. ::)
Certainly, there are many effects.
But GR is built to describe an attractive gravity between masses. If you propose that this is not true, the whole concept of GR must be totally pointless to you.
-
Oh come on. You got distracted by that?
How goes general relativity support a flat earth?
Here, Ill give this to help you.
General relativity was Einstein’s theory of gravity, published in 1915, which extended special relativity to take into account non-inertial frames of reference — areas that are accelerating with respect to each other. General relativity takes the form of field equations, describing the curvature of space-time and the distribution of matter throughout space-time. The effects of matter and space-time on each other are what we perceive as gravity.
simple explanation (http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-general-relativity-theory-gravity-as-geo.html)
You and Neil and markjo are the ones harping on about homogeneous gravity. If you don't like the topic, then tell them to stop, not me.
-
"So, then, your question is kind of moot, then? "
No it is not.
You made a claim, and I am asking you to substantiate it.
And if your smarter than me, then it should be no trouble for you to simplify your explanations.
But I am sure I will be able to keep up.
Further, this is a public forum, meaning, even if I do not understand, other people are reading and learning. You are not just talking to me.
Okay, let me try to explain. General relativity is based on the einstein equivalence principle, which states that you can not tell the difference whether you are in a point where there is no gravity or whether you are in free fall in a homogenous gravitational field. Whoops. I mentioned gravity. Seems like it has to exist in order for general relativity to be legit.
So, you have never taken into account that something other than "gravity" could cause any variations? Yeah, you seem like a real scientist to me. ::)
Certainly, there are many effects.
But GR is built to describe an attractive gravity between masses. If you propose that this is not true, the whole concept of GR must be totally pointless to you.
GR was built to fill in gaps that the rest of your science, in progression, left holes in. Are there holes in GR? Of course there is, but that does not take away from the fact that it did plug holes in Newtonian Physics.
-
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.
If you claim as above I am genuinely interested in how you got to that conclusion.
Just substantiate your claim. Or change your views on it. Either is fine.
Your just saying how everything is wrong, but I am yet to see you make a substantiated positive claim.
-
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.
If you claim as above I am genuinely interested in how you got to that conclusion.
Just substantiate your claim. Or change your views on it. Either is fine.
Your just saying how everything is wrong, but I am yet to see you make a substantiated positive claim.
You have never seen wholes in GR, or the holes in the other theories that it tried to fill? Are you being serious now, or just pulling my leg?
-
You have never seen wholes in GR, or the holes in the other theories that it tried to fill? Are you being serious now, or just pulling my leg?
I know that science is not complete. I wont trust anyone saying it is. edit
But that was not an answer.
You said that general relativity supports a flat earth hypothesis. I am trying to understand your statement. By saying that something else has holes in it does not substantiate an unrelated claim. If you concede that general relativity does not in fact support a flat earth model, just say so, and we can chat about how science has a long way to go.
-
You have never seen wholes in GR, or the holes in the other theories that it tried to fill? Are you being serious now, or just pulling my leg?
I know that science is not complete. I wont trust anyone saying it is. edit
But that was not an answer.
You said that general relativity supports a flat earth hypothesis. I am trying to understand your statement. By saying that something else has holes in it does not substantiate an unrelated claim. If you concede that general relativity does not in fact support a flat earth model, just say so, and we can chat about how science has a long way to go.
If you don't think that GR supports FET, then please, by all means, present your case.
-
"So, then, your question is kind of moot, then? "
No it is not.
You made a claim, and I am asking you to substantiate it.
And if your smarter than me, then it should be no trouble for you to simplify your explanations.
But I am sure I will be able to keep up.
Further, this is a public forum, meaning, even if I do not understand, other people are reading and learning. You are not just talking to me.
If you think that GR does not support FET, then please, by all means, present your case for us to examine.
we are still waiting for your case.
-
"So, then, your question is kind of moot, then? "
No it is not.
You made a claim, and I am asking you to substantiate it.
And if your smarter than me, then it should be no trouble for you to simplify your explanations.
But I am sure I will be able to keep up.
Further, this is a public forum, meaning, even if I do not understand, other people are reading and learning. You are not just talking to me.
If you think that GR does not support FET, then please, by all means, present your case for us to examine.
we are still waiting for your case.
If you can't present reasonable suspicion, then your case is thrown out of court. Sorry, you lose, loser.
-
Passing the responsibility to someone else to substantiate their claim?
Super short version - General relativity relates matter to gravity, FE gravity does not work unless it is in the infinite plane model.
Enough about me, I though we where talking about you. You keep passing the responsibility of substantiating positive claims to others. Now I am repeatedly asking you to substantiate a positive claim you made.
Again, if you change your views that is completely acceptable.
-
Passing the responsibility to someone else to substantiate their claim?
Super short version - General relativity relates matter to gravity, FE gravity does not work unless it is in the infinite plane model.
Enough about me, I though we where talking about you. You keep passing the responsibility of substantiating positive claims to others. Now I am repeatedly asking you to substantiate a positive claim you made.
Again, if you change your views that is completely acceptable.
Burden of proof fallacy much? lol
-
"So, then, your question is kind of moot, then? "
No it is not.
You made a claim, and I am asking you to substantiate it.
And if your smarter than me, then it should be no trouble for you to simplify your explanations.
But I am sure I will be able to keep up.
Further, this is a public forum, meaning, even if I do not understand, other people are reading and learning. You are not just talking to me.
If you think that GR does not support FET, then please, by all means, present your case for us to examine.
we are still waiting for your case.
If you can't present reasonable suspicion, then your case is thrown out of court. Sorry, you lose, loser.
Lol
You can't support your claim, like always.
-
"So, then, your question is kind of moot, then? "
No it is not.
You made a claim, and I am asking you to substantiate it.
And if your smarter than me, then it should be no trouble for you to simplify your explanations.
But I am sure I will be able to keep up.
Further, this is a public forum, meaning, even if I do not understand, other people are reading and learning. You are not just talking to me.
If you think that GR does not support FET, then please, by all means, present your case for us to examine.
we are still waiting for your case.
If you can't present reasonable suspicion, then your case is thrown out of court. Sorry, you lose, loser.
Lol
You can't support your claim, like always.
Forgive sokarul. He and his gay soccer buddies are busy playing grabass while running around the soccer field. He will be back soon with coherent statements. Be patient.
-
Why are you so scared to back up your claim?
-
Why are you so scared to back up your claim?
Why are you ashamed of your gay soccer buddies?
-
Burden of proof fallacy much? lol
Ducked again!
Burden of proof fallacy; your claiming the onus is on me to disprove your claim. Well in short, general relativity directly relates to Gravity and its effects in space time. The flat earth model without an infinite plane (also without celestial bodies), is in conflict to this as gravity will pull everything to its centre, leaving you with a ball.
I have a feeling that You just don't know how general relativity supports a flat earth. Your refusal to even attempt to answer makes it clear you cant. You made a claim on faith alone then, which is fine.
-
Ducked again!
You are just dodging and weaving, are you not?
-
Why are you so scared to back up your claim?
Why are you ashamed of your gay soccer buddies?
When you stop being a cry baby we can continue.
-
Why are you so scared to back up your claim?
Why are you ashamed of your gay soccer buddies?
When you stop being a cry baby we can continue.
Why do you think I am looking forward to continuing with you? Is it because you have an inflated idea about your worth? Are you always on your high horse looking down?
-
Jroa, you made the claim that general and special relativity supports Flat earth theory. I am not claiming it doesn't, but I'm not prepared to believe you until you substantiate your claim with evidence. So please do.
-
Jroa, you made the claim that general and special relativity supports Flat earth theory. I am not claiming it doesn't, but I'm not prepared to believe you until you substantiate your claim with evidence. So please do.
I think that the OP claims that GR disproves FET. Why is the burden of proof on me to defend it? Is this how you people always debate?
-
Why are you so scared to back up your claim?
Why are you ashamed of your gay soccer buddies?
When you stop being a cry baby we can continue.
Why do you think I am looking forward to continuing with you? Is it because you have an inflated idea about your worth? Are you always on your high horse looking down?
A pile of dog shit has more reading comprehension than you do.
-
Jroa, you made the claim that general and special relativity supports Flat earth theory. I am not claiming it doesn't, but I'm not prepared to believe you until you substantiate your claim with evidence. So please do.
I think that the OP claims that GR disproves FET. Why is the burden of proof on me to defend it? Is this how you people always debate?
Yes, I have read that claim and the substantiation that followed. I am specifically asking YOU to provide substantiation for YOUR claim, not because you are required but because I (or anyone) won't believe you otherwise.
-
Simple contradiction between the standard FET and GR, if the earth was a finite plane then the gravity (or space time curvature or whatever you want to call the effect GR describes that causes masses to become closer) caused by the mass of the plane would cause the plane to collapse into a sphere.
You could say that some other force/effect is countering gravity (or space time curvature or...) but then you have two unnecessary additions to your theory that can be both removed, so by occam's razor the theory is better without them.
Basically GR is only consistent with FET if you add extra effects to cancel out the gravity caused by GR.
Also if you are just going to say that the earth is too strong to be warped into a sphere, you would still have a gravitational effect (or space time curvature or...) draging everything north, so a mass on a string won't go straight down but would point slightly north.
So what is the point of including GR in the FET, and can you name a piece of evidence for GR instead of Newtonian mechanics, that isn't faked by NASA.
-
GR does not have much to say about the shape of the Earth except for that it along with conservation laws, would favor a spherical shape and not a disc-like shape. However, the observation of a RE is something that applications of GR, like GPS satellites has hinged on.
GR does not prove the Earth round, but its application has encountered the observation of a RE. GR most definitely does not support a FE, that is just Jroa trolling, or "kidding around" as the admins like to put it.
Personally, I think Jroa is a terrorist against truth and reason, in the the Davisian interpretation of the word.
-
Why are you so scared to back up your claim?
Why are you ashamed of your gay soccer buddies?
Isn't this classed as "low content" in the "upper fora"
-
Why are you so scared to back up your claim?
Why are you ashamed of your gay soccer buddies?
Isn't this classed as "low content" in the "upper fora"
Agreed. Nice work derailing the thread, not presenting any evidence and not refuting any of our claims jroa.
At least Sandokan says GR is false to support a FE model.
-
For those who really want to understand the myth behind relativity theory, a classic work: The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers
https://books.google.ro/books?id=-r5IGSTJVPcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=einstein+myth+ives+papers&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK4riKzfTMAhUBVhQKHXAiA-YQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=einstein%20myth%20ives%20papers&f=false
Herbert Ives (Bell labs):
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/Herbert_Ives_Light_Signals_Sent_Around_a_Closed_Path.pdf
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/HerbertIvesGenesis.pdf
And, in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.
"What students are not told is that the Turner & Hill experiment is a garbled version of a 1960 investigation by Ruderfer, who was seeking to discover fluctuations in gamma ray frequency which might indicate motion of an electromagnetic medium across the plane of the spinning disk, causing cyclic Doppler-type changes in the transit times of the gamma rays crossing that disk. Initially Ruderfer put it out that his results were negative for ether drift, but 14 months later he published an errata which stated that mathematical analysis had shown that if an ether wind were blowing across the plane of the spinning disk, one would expect that Doppler fluctuations in the frequency of the gamma radiation detected at the centre of the disk would be compensated by equal and opposite fluctuations in the emitted frequency of the gamma rays, caused by the effect of variations in the ether speed of the source.
What Ruderfer's experiment had stumbled on was that there could be a static electromagnetic medium at rest with respect to the rest of the universe. And it could be that any motion with respect to that medium affects the gamma ray source, and the central Mossbauer detector, by slowing down the rate of process of each by half the square of the ratio of each one's absolute ether speed to the absolute speed of propagation of light. If such were the case, it would follow (as a mathematical necessity) that irrespective of the direction and speed of ether drift of the lab, the central detector of the spinning disk would always observe a steady slowing of the gamma radiation frequency by half the square of the ratio of the spin speed of the source to the out-and-return speed of light, as measured by the detector in a reference frame which is non-rotating with respect to the fixed stars.
Ruderfer's experiment and his errata were of great significance in the history of modern physics because of their psychological impact on the ether deniers. Previously, the Michelson & Morley ether drift experiment had been successfully portrayed as 'negative' rather than 'null' because the proposed compensating factor, Fitzgerald contraction, was a theoretical construct. However, in the case of the Ruderfer experiment, the ether deniers were shocked to find that the experiment provided proof of the existence of the compensating factor in the observed frequency reduction, making it indubitably a null ether drift experiment.
Since the motion-induced frequency reduction of the gamma ray source is by a steady 'half the square of the ratio of the disk spin speed to the speed of propagation of the gamma rays', and since this is exactly the amount required to give the same result, irrespective of whether the disk is at ether rest, or is orientated edgewise (or at right angles) to a hypothetical ether drift, this constituted prima facie evidence for something for which the ether deniers have a particular fear and loathing - 'laws of nature which conspire to conceal the effect of ether drift'."
The best paper on the mistakes committed by Einstein, the MM experiment, the Miller experiment, the Sagnac experiment, Nernst experiment:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eTFecrvwvc8J:lowenergytransmutations.org/documents/The_Real_Einstein_Monti_Cesarano.doc+&cd=9&hl=ro&ct=clnk&gl=ro
-
And yet GR is still proven today with real life experiments on a daily basis. In fact almost everyone here had used equipment that relies on the understanding of General Relativity.
-
For those who really want to understand the myth behind relativity theory, a classic work: The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers
https://books.google.ro/books?id=-r5IGSTJVPcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=einstein+myth+ives+papers&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK4riKzfTMAhUBVhQKHXAiA-YQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q=einstein%20myth%20ives%20papers&f=false
Herbert Ives (Bell labs):
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/Herbert_Ives_Light_Signals_Sent_Around_a_Closed_Path.pdf
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Ives/HerbertIvesGenesis.pdf
And, in 1961, M. Ruderfer proved mathematically and experimentally, using the spinning Mossbauer effect, the FIRST NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.
"What students are not told is that the Turner & Hill experiment is a garbled version of a 1960 investigation by Ruderfer, who was seeking to discover fluctuations in gamma ray frequency which might indicate motion of an electromagnetic medium across the plane of the spinning disk, causing cyclic Doppler-type changes in the transit times of the gamma rays crossing that disk. Initially Ruderfer put it out that his results were negative for ether drift, but 14 months later he published an errata which stated that mathematical analysis had shown that if an ether wind were blowing across the plane of the spinning disk, one would expect that Doppler fluctuations in the frequency of the gamma radiation detected at the centre of the disk would be compensated by equal and opposite fluctuations in the emitted frequency of the gamma rays, caused by the effect of variations in the ether speed of the source.
What Ruderfer's experiment had stumbled on was that there could be a static electromagnetic medium at rest with respect to the rest of the universe. And it could be that any motion with respect to that medium affects the gamma ray source, and the central Mossbauer detector, by slowing down the rate of process of each by half the square of the ratio of each one's absolute ether speed to the absolute speed of propagation of light. If such were the case, it would follow (as a mathematical necessity) that irrespective of the direction and speed of ether drift of the lab, the central detector of the spinning disk would always observe a steady slowing of the gamma radiation frequency by half the square of the ratio of the spin speed of the source to the out-and-return speed of light, as measured by the detector in a reference frame which is non-rotating with respect to the fixed stars.
Ruderfer's experiment and his errata were of great significance in the history of modern physics because of their psychological impact on the ether deniers. Previously, the Michelson & Morley ether drift experiment had been successfully portrayed as 'negative' rather than 'null' because the proposed compensating factor, Fitzgerald contraction, was a theoretical construct. However, in the case of the Ruderfer experiment, the ether deniers were shocked to find that the experiment provided proof of the existence of the compensating factor in the observed frequency reduction, making it indubitably a null ether drift experiment.
Since the motion-induced frequency reduction of the gamma ray source is by a steady 'half the square of the ratio of the disk spin speed to the speed of propagation of the gamma rays', and since this is exactly the amount required to give the same result, irrespective of whether the disk is at ether rest, or is orientated edgewise (or at right angles) to a hypothetical ether drift, this constituted prima facie evidence for something for which the ether deniers have a particular fear and loathing - 'laws of nature which conspire to conceal the effect of ether drift'."
The best paper on the mistakes committed by Einstein, the MM experiment, the Miller experiment, the Sagnac experiment, Nernst experiment:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:eTFecrvwvc8J:lowenergytransmutations.org/documents/The_Real_Einstein_Monti_Cesarano.doc+&cd=9&hl=ro&ct=clnk&gl=ro
Just for the record, I repect the way you put forward your opinions and ideas.
Looking into the links and citations now, thanks.
-
And yet GR is still proven today with real life experiments on a daily basis.
To this very date, almost one hundred years later, there isn't a single experiment which can prove the existence of general relativity.
ALL the experiments performed during the last 90 years ASSUMED, from the very start, a constant speed of light.
The most famous of these, the Pound-Rebka experiment, failed miserably to prove anything relating to general relativity.
Both Pound and Rebka ASSUMED that the speed of light is constant and not a variable.
If the speed of the light pulses in the gravitational field is VARIABLE, then the frequency shift measured by Pound and Rebka is a direct consequence of this variability and there is no gravitational time dilation.
Let us get back to the Martin Ruderfer experiment of 1960-1961.
It proved for the first time, conclusively, the first NULL RESULT in ether drift theory.
Previously, the Michelson & Morley ether drift experiment had been successfully portrayed as 'negative' rather than 'null' because the proposed compensating factor, Fitzgerald contraction, was a theoretical construct. However, in the case of the Ruderfer experiment, the ether deniers were shocked to find that the experiment provided proof of the existence of the compensating factor in the observed frequency reduction, making it indubitably a null ether drift experiment.
But the GPS satellites, orbiting the Earth, while at the same time the Earth would be orbiting the Sun (heliocentrical hypothesis), CONSTITUTES A LARGE SCALE SPINNING MOSSBAUER EFFECT.
That is, the results of the Ruderfer experiment also apply to this case.
But the ORBITAL MOTION SAGNAC EFFECT IS NOT RECORDED BY GPS SATELLITES.
Why is there no requirement for a Sagnac correction due to the earth’s orbital motion? Like the transit time in the spinning Mossbauer experiments, any such effect would be completely canceled by the orbital-velocity effect on the satellite clocks.
However, indirectly, the counteracting effects of the transit time and clock slowing induced biases indicate that an ether drift is present. This is because there is independent evidence that clocks are slowed as a result of their speed. Thus,
ether drift must exist or else the clock slowing effect would be observed.
First, the gradient of the solar gravitational effects upon clocks on the surface of the earth is such that the clocks will speed up and slow down in precisely the correct way to retain the appropriate up-wind and down-wind clock biases. Thus, the clocks must be biased or else the solar gravitational effects would become apparent.
Second, as Charles Hill has shown, clocks on the earth clearly vary their rate as
the speed of the earth around the sun varies. Earth clocks run slower when the earth’s
speed increases and the earth’s distance from the sun is decreased near perihelion. The
earth’s clocks run faster near aphelion. This variation must be counteracted via an ether
drift effect else it could be detected in GPS and VLBI experiments.
http://ivanik3.narod.ru/GPS/Hatch/EtherDrift.pdf
BY ASSUMING THAT STR IS CORRECT, MODERN ASTROPHYSICS MUST ALSO ASSUME THAT THE ORBITAL VELOCITY OF THE EARTH AROUND THE SUN, IN AN ELLIPTICAL ORBIT, MUST BE A CONSTANT.
However, upon further reflection, it became
apparent that one significant complication with respect to
the two frames was not dealt with. Specifically, GPS was
compared in the two frames assuming that the earth’s
orbital velocity was constant.
What is the significance of this interim conclusion? We
have shown that, assuming the speed of light is isotropic
in the sun’s frame, the velocity of clocks on the spinning
earth will cause them to be biased by just the amount
needed to make it appear as if the speed of light is
actually isotropic on the earth.
However, the true believer in
SRT can argue that this is simply a coincidence and that it
is still the magic of SRT which automatically causes the
speed of light to be isotropic on the earth. There is no way
to refute his argument in this simplified case where we
have assumed that the direction of the orbital velocity
vector is constant. But, when the change in the orbital
velocity direction is allowed, we get an astonishing result.
By contrast, if SRT/GRT is
correct, we would expect that the clocks on earth and in
the GPS system would require an adjustment for the
effect of the sun’s differential gravitational potential.
Since clocks on earth and in the GPS system function
properly by ignoring the effect of the sun’s gravitational
potential, we must conclude that SRT/GRT is wrong.
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Clock_Behavior_and_theSearch_for_an_Underlying_Mechanism_for_Relativistic_Phenomena_2002.pdf
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Relativity_and_GPS-II_1995.pdf
The missing orbital sagnac is consistent with the earth at absolute rest, with a rotating ether field above it (rotational sagnac effect).
"In GPS the actual magnitude of the Sagnac correction
due to earth’s rotation depends on the positions of
satellites and receiver and a typical value is 30 m, as the
propagation time is about 0.1s and the linear speed due
to earth’s rotation is about 464 m/s at the equator. The
GPS provides an accuracy of about 10 m or better in positioning.
Thus the precision of GPS will be degraded significantly,
if the Sagnac correction due to earth’s rotation
is not taken into account. On the other hand, the orbital
motion of the earth around the sun has a linear speed of
about 30 km/s which is about 100 times that of earth’s
rotation. Thus the present high-precision GPS would be
entirely impossible if the omitted correction due to orbital
motion is really necessary.
In an intercontinental microwave link between Japan and
the USA via a geostationary satellite as relay, the influence
of earth’s rotation is also demonstrated in a high-precision
time comparison between the atomic clocks at two remote
ground stations.
In this transpacific-link experiment, a synchronization
error of as large as about 0.3 µs was observed unexpectedly.
Meanwhile, as in GPS, no effects of earth’s orbital motion
are reported in these links, although they would be
easier to observe if they are in existence. Thereby, it is evident
that the wave propagation in GPS or the intercontinental
microwave link depends on the earth’s rotation, but
is entirely independent of earth’s orbital motion around
the sun or whatever. As a consequence, the propagation
mechanism in GPS or intercontinental link can be viewed
as classical in conjunction with an ECI frame, rather than
the ECEF or any other frame, being selected as the unique
propagation frame. In other words, the wave in GPS or the
intercontinental microwave link can be viewed as propagating
via a classical medium stationary in a geocentric
inertial frame."
The orbital Sagnac effect is totally missing from GPS.
But, in the heliocentrical theory, the orbital Sagnac effect would be cancelled by the spinning Mossbauer effect, proven by Martin Ruderfer; such a cancellation would mean the existence of an ether field.
-
sandokhan, just curious, is there anything in "mainstream science" that you actually believe is legit? Kepler, Newton, Einsten etc. all seem to be wrong.
-
Mainstream science = the original ether equations of J.C. Maxwell
Mainstream science = the discoveries of N. Tesla
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1639521#msg1639521
Kepler, Newton, Einstein = fudged data, fake experiments
To understand what mainstream science really is, we have to go back to the Hertz experiment of 1887.
"It was the discovery of this type of wave [transverse electromagnetic wave] that Hertz had laid claim to, but Tesla was meticulous and fastidious in replicating Hertz’s experimental parameters and he could not obtain the results claimed by Hertz.
Tesla discovered a fundamental flaw in Hertz’s experiment: Hertz had failed to take into account he presence of air in his experiments. Hertz had mistakenly identified electrostatic inductions or electrified shockwaves as true electromagnetic waves. Tesla was saddened to bring this news to the distinguished academician, but felt scientific honesty was paramount if progress was to be achieved. Tesla visited Hertz in Germany and personally demonstrated the experimental error to him. Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the ‘accepted’ theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental “laws” of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day."
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1919-05-00.htm
A normal electromagnetic wave is made up of two scalar waves (telluric currents, subquark strings) which travel in double torsion fashion: one of them has a dextrorotatory spin, the other a laevorotatory spin.
Tesla injected signals/energy directly into such a scalar wave (longitudinal wave), which would travel through the normal radio wave (transversal wave) without causing any ripples in the sea of ether.
Modern wireless technology uses only hertzian waves, causing ripples in the sea of ether.
True wireless technology means to use only scalar waves, non-hertzian waves, to send signals.
Tesla did not extract energy from the Schumann cavity: he created it right at the start in the form of ball lightning spheres, this was his secret.
(http://i113.photobucket.com/albums/n206/dharanis1/ts1_zps5jjcnx4u.jpg)
In 1891, Nikola Tesla gave a lecture for the members of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers in New York City, where he made a striking demonstration. In each hand he held a gas discharge tube, an early version of the modern fluorescent bulb. The tubes were not connected to any wires, but nonetheless they glowed brightly during his demonstration. Tesla explained to the awestruck attendees that the electricity was being transmitted through the air by the pair of metal sheets which sandwiched the stage. He went on to speculate how one might increase the scale of this effect to transmit wireless power and information over a broad area, perhaps even the entire Earth. As was often the case, Tesla's audience was engrossed but bewildered.
During the Chicago World's Fair of 1893, the Westinghouse exhibit set up by Tesla was visited by the Herman von Helmholtz, the first director of the Physico-Technical Institute of Berlin and one of the leading scientists of his time. When Tesla "asked the celebrated physicist for an expression of opinion on the feasibility of the [transmission] scheme. He stated unhesitatingly that it was practicable."
In 1897, Lord Kelvin visited New York and stopped at the Tesla laboratory where Tesla "entertained him with demonstrations in support of my wireless theory."
Suddenly [Kelvin] remarked with evident astonishment: 'Then you are not making use of Hertz waves?'
'Certainly not', I replied, 'these are radiations.' ... I can never forget the magic change that came over the illustrious philosopher the moment he freed himself from that erroneous impression. The skeptic who would not believe was suddenly transformed into the warmest of supporters. He parted from me not only thoroughly convinced of the scientific soundness of the idea but strongly expressed his confidence in its success."
-
I love how the conspiracies greatest reasoning is "Hertz agreed with Tesla and had planned to withdraw his claim, but reputations, political agendas, national pride, and above all, powerful financial interests, intervened in that decision and set the stage for a major rift in the ‘accepted’ theories that soon became transformed into the fundamental “laws” of the electric sciences that have held sway in industry and the halls of academia to the present day."
Essentially, "we have already printed the text books, we cant change it now!"
If there was any truth to this, and there was any commercial application, people would discover it and apply it. There have been many people since Tesla, just as smart as Tesla, playing with electricity every day.
-
Why are you so scared to back up your claim?
Why are you ashamed of your gay soccer buddies?
Isn't this classed as "low content" in the "upper fora"
Some might even consider it sexual harassment and/or homophobic hate speech.
-
If you believe in Relativity you by necessity must believe in a flat earth as in inertial frames of reference its clear that the Earth is flat. Otherwise orbits would not work.
-
If you believe in Relativity you by necessity must believe in a flat earth as in inertial frames of reference its clear that the Earth is flat. Otherwise orbits would not work.
That makes zero sense.
-
If you believe in Relativity you by necessity must believe in a flat earth as in inertial frames of reference its clear that the Earth is flat. Otherwise orbits would not work.
Pretty shure Einstein, the inventor of general relativity, did not believe in a flat earth.
-
If you believe in Relativity you by necessity must believe in a flat earth as in inertial frames of reference its clear that the Earth is flat. Otherwise orbits would not work.
Can you explain this or give a link?
-
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.
General relativity (GR) is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Albert Einstein between 1907 and 1915. According to general relativity, the observed gravitational attraction between masses results from the warping of space and time by those masses. General relativity has developed into an essential tool in modern astrophysics. It provides the foundation for the current understanding of black holes, regions of space where gravitational attraction is so strong that not even light can escape
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#General_relativity_and_the_equivalence_principle (http://wiki)
Gravity is inconsistent with FE.
So not just me and sokarul then jroa.
Please show us where you believe GR supports a flat earth model, it is much easier to tear people down than to build yourself up, don't be caught in a lesser path.
You have still not provided a single case in which relativity contradicts FET. If you can't support your claims, then please stay out of the debate section. This forum is for the big kids.
You have still not provided a single case in which relativity supports FET. If you can't support your claims, then please stay out of the debate section. This forum is for the big kids.
(I don't know why I even feel the need to point out your inconsistencies, jroa, since your clearly just a troll. But bad arguments are still bad arguments, I guess.)
-
First, as I point out here, (1) you have to have FIRST have a FE with people living on one side to contradict, (2) without which UA and relativity discussions/debates are immaterial and moot: (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=66457.0)
Second, jroa with his debate tactics and insults gets himself into hot water then tries to squirm out of if. When when REers try to "pin him down" on what he said, he cries "they are ganging up on me or chasing me around forums/threads" and insults people (fun for him as a moderator) because he has no proof, just unsupported claims and insults. Notice how he spins his
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.
into
You have still not provided a single case in which relativity contradicts FET. If you can't support your claims, then please stay out of the debate section. This forum is for the big kids.
What a troll... just ignore him (actually "them", others that derail and insult people as well). Many FEers here are just here just to debate, derail and insult people. If you check jroa's original posts (2011), he was a strong REer. I was trying to find out what made him flip. He never answered. He wanted me to read through ~29,000 posts to find out! He can't summarize why because he is still a REer just arguing a FE (and I think he is just sick and likes to insult people for "the fun of it").
-
Jadyyn
"I was trying to find out what made him flip"
(https://theclemreport.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/109b7-some_men_just_want_to_watch_the_world_burn.gif)
-
Why are you people so obsessed with me? Is it because I intimate you, or because I fascinate you with my superior intellect? Either way, this cyber stalking needs to stop. Pull yourselves together.
-
Why are you people so obsessed with me? Is it because I intimate you, or because I fascinate you with my superior intellect? Either way, this cyber stalking needs to stop. Pull yourselves together.
:o I knew it 8)
-
If you believe in Relativity you by necessity must believe in a flat earth as in inertial frames of reference its clear that the Earth is flat. Otherwise orbits would not work.
Can you explain this or give a link?
Sure relativity relies on Newton's Laws holding and gravity being a pseudoforce. Therefore inertial frames of reference are by nature still or travelling a straight line in curved space. Since perfectly orbiting satellites are indeed in inertial frames of reference we can then know they are either perfectly still or travelling a straight line. This follows from Newton's First Law:
A body at rest will remain at rest unless an outside force acts on it, and a body in motion at a constant velocity will remain in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force.
and understanding the Equivalence principle (if it was accelerating then it would not be in an inertial frame of reference and also would not be travelling a straight-line at a constant speed).
Given all such stable orbiting satellites we see that the bounding space of Earth is then flat as it is comprised of many intersecting flat lines (the paths of the orbits.)
From there its a short jump to see the surface itself is also flat.
-
I think you mixed space with spacetime here. They travel in a straight line through spacetime, not through space itself.
-
Edit: I'm going to look into this more to make sure I'm not putting my foot in my mouth first =-). Thanks for pointing this out. Rabinoz actually pointed out something similar earlier and I wrote it off.
-
Edit: I'm going to look into this more to make sure I'm not putting my foot in my mouth first =-). Thanks for pointing this out. Rabinoz actually pointed out something similar earlier and I wrote it off.
How very mature of you. Rationality like that is hard to find in a forum like this. I still think you're using General Relativity as a crutch to try and support your presupposed idea that the earth is flat. The thing is, relativity is hard. It's especially hard when you don't even have a firm grasp of Newtonian and Keplerian mechanics. Study those first, and then see how General Relativity refines upon them.
-
I think you mixed space with spacetime here. They travel in a straight line through spacetime, not through space itself.
I don't think that he quite understands what curved spacetime really means either.
-
Edit: I'm going to look into this more to make sure I'm not putting my foot in my mouth first =-). Thanks for pointing this out. Rabinoz actually pointed out something similar earlier and I wrote it off.
I do markjo.
I do believe it is still coherent but I want to show this formally. Its a good test against the idea. That said - if relativity doesn't hold up to it, all the worse for relativity. The theory is right - to paraphrase its creator.
-
I do believe it is still coherent but I want to show this formally. Its a good test against the idea. That said - if relativity doesn't hold up to it, all the worse for relativity. The theory is right - to paraphrase its creator.
I think you have it the other way around; relativity has been tested thoroughly enough that yours is theory that would need to hold up to it.
-
"Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct."
-
I hate to tell you this John, but you're no Einstein.
-
"Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct."
Fortunately for the world, they didn't take Einsteins word for it.
-
"Then I would feel sorry for the good Lord; the theory is correct."
Fortunately for the world, they didn't take Einsteins word for it.
No, and good job - as the majority of similar claims throughout history have turned out to be wrong.
-
Its a good thing then that this one is correct.
-
Its a good thing then that this one is correct.
Let us know when your idea is ready for falsification.
-
It will be right after Dark Matter is ready for falsification.
You know, because mainstream science avoid falsification by any means necessary. Nobody wants to throw away a careers worth of work.
-
Its a good thing then that this one is correct.
Well publish the theory and lets see it put to peer review, not just a few clued up people on a forum debunking for fun.
-
It will be right after Dark Matter is ready for falsification.
You know, because mainstream science avoid falsification by any means necessary. Nobody wants to throw away a careers worth of work.
It's already underway. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/controversial-dark-matter-claim-faces-ultimate-test/)Your turn!
-
You know, because mainstream science avoid falsification by any means necessary. Nobody wants to throw away a careers worth of work.
If this were true then we'd still think combustion was due to phlogiston, disease is spread by a miasma and my doctor would be trying to balance my humours.