# Overwhelming support for general relativity.

• 116 Replies
• 6357 Views
?

#### chuckstables

• 1 ##### Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« 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? #### sandokhan

• Flat Earth Sultan
• Flat Earth Scientist
• 4867 ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2016, 12:44:37 AM »
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  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

?

#### Empirical

• 1307 ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #2 on: May 24, 2016, 03:57:05 AM » #### Son of Orospu

• Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
• Planar Moderator
• 37806
• I have artificial intelligence ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2016, 04:07:47 AM »
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory. ?

#### Empirical

• 1307 ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2016, 04:10:01 AM »
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: Looks normal, right? Well, can you see the red V? Here it is flipped 90 degrees: Actually rotated clockwise 120º

Dumb people think 90º is the same as different.

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? #### Son of Orospu

• Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
• Planar Moderator
• 37806
• I have artificial intelligence ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2016, 04:13:49 AM »
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: Looks normal, right? Well, can you see the red V? Here it is flipped 90 degrees: Actually rotated clockwise 120º

Dumb people think 90º is the same as different.

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?  #### disputeone

• Ranters
• 16482
• Or should I? ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2016, 05:06:05 AM »
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.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160 #### Son of Orospu

• Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
• Planar Moderator
• 37806
• I have artificial intelligence ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2016, 05:12:51 AM »
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?  #### disputeone

• Ranters
• 16482
• Or should I? ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2016, 05:30:58 AM »
Quote
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.

Quote
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?
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

?

#### Kami

• 993 ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2016, 05:40:07 AM »
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. #### Son of Orospu

• Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
• Planar Moderator
• 37806
• I have artificial intelligence ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #10 on: May 24, 2016, 05:42:54 AM »
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?   #### Son of Orospu

• Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
• Planar Moderator
• 37806
• I have artificial intelligence ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #11 on: May 24, 2016, 05:43:35 AM »
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.  #### MaNaeSWolf

• 1512
• Show me the evidence ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #12 on: May 24, 2016, 05:50:52 AM »
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.

Quote
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

Gravity is inconsistent with FE. #### Son of Orospu

• Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
• Planar Moderator
• 37806
• I have artificial intelligence ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #13 on: May 24, 2016, 05:53:47 AM »
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.

Quote
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

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.   #### disputeone

• Ranters
• 16482
• Or should I? ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2016, 05:55:35 AM »
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.

Quote
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

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.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

?

#### Kami

• 993 ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #15 on: May 24, 2016, 05:58:56 AM »
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? #### disputeone

• Ranters
• 16482
• Or should I? ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #16 on: May 24, 2016, 06:16:40 AM »
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.

Quote
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?

For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160 #### Son of Orospu

• Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
• Planar Moderator
• 37806
• I have artificial intelligence ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #17 on: May 24, 2016, 06:21:12 AM »
General Relativity, and Relativity in general, actually supports the flat Earth theory.

Quote
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

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.  #### Son of Orospu

• Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
• Planar Moderator
• 37806
• I have artificial intelligence ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #18 on: May 24, 2016, 06:22:47 AM »
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.  #### MaNaeSWolf

• 1512
• Show me the evidence ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #19 on: May 24, 2016, 06:24:48 AM »
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.

?

#### Kami

• 993 ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #20 on: May 24, 2016, 06:28:14 AM »
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.

Quote
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.

?

#### Kami

• 993 ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #21 on: May 24, 2016, 06:33:42 AM »
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 #### MaNaeSWolf

• 1512
• Show me the evidence ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #22 on: May 24, 2016, 06:35:39 AM »
Quote
Quote
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 #### Son of Orospu

• Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
• Planar Moderator
• 37806
• I have artificial intelligence ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #23 on: May 24, 2016, 06:41:41 AM »
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. ?

#### Kami

• 993 ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #24 on: May 24, 2016, 06:51:32 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2016, 06:54:29 AM by Kami » #### MaNaeSWolf

• 1512
• Show me the evidence ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #25 on: May 24, 2016, 06:52:22 AM »
In conditions not approaching relativistic speeds, please explain
Quote
all of the errors in the Newtonian Theory
Then you can swiftly explain exactly how GR contradicts Newtonian physics?

Quote
plug the holes
Quote
correct all of the wrong calculations
are not explanations, those are vague claims. #### Son of Orospu

• Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
• Planar Moderator
• 37806
• I have artificial intelligence ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #26 on: May 24, 2016, 06:59:49 AM »
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.  #### MaNaeSWolf

• 1512
• Show me the evidence ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #27 on: May 24, 2016, 07:08:12 AM »
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? #### Son of Orospu

• Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
• Planar Moderator
• 37806
• I have artificial intelligence ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #28 on: May 24, 2016, 07:10:50 AM »
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. ?

#### Kami

• 993 ##### Re: Overwhelming support for general relativity.
« Reply #29 on: May 24, 2016, 07:12:32 AM »
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?