Could there be an Earth 2?

Quote from: karl on May 03, 2011, 04:00:24 PM

I am closer to relativity than you can possibly imagine, which gives me a unique insight into your thinking and theorising.


you have posted a fancy looking equation that is meant to make you look like you understand it, which you don't, otherwise you'd have typed it up and explained it yourself, and have left it there as if it proves a point you where making, which it doesn't as you haven't successfully linked it to the assertion you were trying to prove wrong. in short, you're trying to blind people with science who are more intelligent than you.

so, just to be clear, can you define your argument and explain how your equation on special relativity proves it, please?

Sorry karl, but if you look closely you'll notice that there is a hyperlink above the equation I quoted, which will lead you to the source it was taken from. It contains a detailed explanation which should be more than sufficient. If you have any further questions of this kind, check out the link below:


www.rif.org

more avoidance with links to external sources. I asked you to use it in context to prove your point, it's a test to see if you know what you're talking about, and in refusal to conclusively prove me wrong, you are showing your ignorance in all its light. in fact, I put it to you that you didn't even have a point to make and where just trying to look all cool and flat earthy

that the modification you claim justifies it has recently been invalidated.

You have yet to prove that it was invalidated. All you have done is quoted one person in which nobody in the scientific field supports his conclusions. If you do any searches on the formula being wrong, or on the "Millennium Relativity Formula" all you get is the same guy.

You want a disproof? Here you go.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Cg2FpLQsjzUJ:www.polarhome.com:763/~rafimoor/english/vc1.htm

I take it you've read your link? Because it's a pretty poor link if you have, you can practically hear the author's put his fingers in his ears and shout "say it isn't so, say it isn't so". Try harder.

I take it you've read your link? Because it's a pretty poor link if you have, you can practically hear the author's put his fingers in his ears and shout "say it isn't so, say it isn't so". Try harder.

Nice to see you are in denial. The author calmly walks through your entire article and shows how it is incorrect. Considering your author had to use himself as a reference to make it look as thought he has a works cited page and is credible, I believe it is your author that should be under scrutiny.

Your trolling is pretty terrible and transparent to say the least.

Trolling would involve agreeing with you. And he numerous parts of the particle he agrees with the invalidation articles points and then says it 's still wrong because it is. Much like the FES really. I can see why you used it now.

Trolling would involve agreeing with you. And he numerous parts of the particle he agrees with the invalidation articles points and then says it 's still wrong because it is. Much like the FES really. I can see why you used it now.

Oh really? Do point these parts out.

Nor are you. Nor was Einstein. Follow the proof through and you'll see their point.

I actually can't seem to find any references or serious critique of their work anywhere other than a handful of web forums and on their own site. Even flat Earth Theory is better publicised than these guys, and we're challenging mainstream views a lot more than they are. What's more, their forum appears to be chock-a-block with people who think he's wrong. Check out the below threads:


http://www.mrelativity.net/VBForum/showthread.php?t=244

http://www.mrelativity.net/VBForum/showthread.php?t=273


I've never claimed to be a math's whizz, but their whole site gives me a bad vibe. My guess is that you did a quick Google to save face, and are now attempting to throw this out here in the hope that it sticks.

that later line sounds like a tactic you're very fluent and familiar with, fancy that