Radar ranging in the Solar System

  • 234 Replies
  • 8622 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #210 on: November 24, 2019, 02:50:24 AM »
<<  Irrelevant and off-topic! >>
You are unable to explain the insane claim that water stays in place in the form of oceans, sea, rivers, lakes, on the outside surface of a sphere.
That's been answered already! But the short answer is "Exactly the same thing that stops you from floating off into space, gravity! "

But why should anybody try to answer all that when you refuse to give the simplest of explanation to something fairly close to the topic?
Now stop wasting everybody's time.
But you could explain exactly your calculations leading your Sun being 600 m in diameter and 20 km, 15 km, 12 km or is it 10 km above the Earth.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #211 on: November 24, 2019, 03:08:18 AM »
And you seem to be the one repeatedly bringing up that claim as well. You were the first to mention it in this thread.

You mean that is not your claim as well?

That is, you agree that four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere by PURE MAGIC?

Do you know what that means?
It isn't the original set of equations.
Instead it is a derivation based upon an assumption.


You are trolling the upper forums, yet again.

That is the basic assumption made by Maxwell and BY EVERYONE ELSE since 1861.

The original set of Maxwell's equations leads to INVARIANCE UNDER GALILEAN TRANSFORMATIONS.

Take a look at your pathetic presence here: you have accepted the Heaviside-Lorentz equations with no problem at all, yet now you are in a uproar over the REAL SET OF MAXWELLIAN EQUATIONS.

You are showing to everyone here your true colors: you are refusing to accept reality.

Yes, this is the original set of Maxwell equations.







SUPERLUMINAL WAVES WITH GALILEAN INVARIANCE.

Fully proven.

So, Newton's explanation as to the refraction of light through a prism is correct.

I have provided the references which PROVE the existence of the LOCAL-ETHER MODEL.

This ether is located above the atmosphere.

This is the Dome itself.

As for the speed of light to Venus, I have provided the GERSENSHTEIN-ZEL'DOVISH EFFECT, where photons are converted into gravitons in the presence of a strong magnetic field.


Nothing is more insane than claiming that four trillion billion liters of water stay in place on the outside surface of a sphere for five billion years.

Take a look at yourself: you are unable to provide any kind of an explanation for terrestrial gravity.

You are unable to explain the insane claim that water stays in place in the form of oceans, sea, rivers, lakes, on the outside surface of a sphere.



That's been answered already!

You have not provided any kind of an explanation.

You claimed that gravity is not attractive.

Then, you tried to use general relativity, which however is derived directly from Newton's attractive law of gravity, as plainly and directly shown in the paper quoted in my previous messages.

So we are back where we started.

Please explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2019, 03:10:43 AM by sandokhan »

*

Stash

  • 5962
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #212 on: November 24, 2019, 03:27:36 AM »
words...

You are trolling the upper forums, yet again. And you haven't done your homework.

How do planes not burst into flames when they are 10k ft from the sun? Your video source for whatever has been completely debunked, dismantled and dispensed with. It's sad you would rest your reputation on such a ridiculous video. Your call.

As well, have you figured out Macarios' triangle?

*

Timeisup

  • 1244
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #213 on: November 24, 2019, 03:27:45 AM »
This is yet another very strange discussion where the person who posts all the mathematical formulae and continually quotes strange references appears to ignore commonly accepted principles and facts that can be checked by use of a simple telescope. Measuring is very much my thing and it's well known that radar can be used to measure and plot locations of objects both stationary and moving very precisely. I don't think there is anyone who would argue about the fairly basic principles of Radar which were first put to use here in the UK during the early part of WW2 to great effect. A source produces electromagnetic waves they travel in a specific direction and if they bounce off any object in their path the reflected waves are picked up and the position of the object doing the reflecting is determined. Since WW2 the technology has evolved greatly and is used in a wide variety of applications. Because it has been in use for over 80 years the underlying physics is well understood. I think that is a given. One of the areas where it is used is Astronomy as the original post mentioned. The moon being relatively close was an obvious target and the distance to the moon and its dimensions have been long established. The question regarding the distance to the moon is one that is not open for debate as which ever method you choose to use from one of the following:
Radar
Laser
Parallax
Using lunar eclipses
Experimentation involving hi res photography, GPS and the Moons occlusion of Regulus.
etc, as there are a number of other methods.
 Which ever method you choose you are going to come up with more or less the same answer. I always think if you approach a problem, the distance to the Moon, and you attempt to solve this by using a number of very different methods that all yield the same result within a fairly tight tolerance band then you can assume that the distance that was arrived at is a fairly accurate one.
To say the Moon is only a few Kilometres above the surface of the earth is just plain silly as this ignores all the know facts and the measurements arrived at by a number of different methods.
The distance to the moon is 384,400 Kilometres with a diameter of 1,737 Kilometres.

In regard to the jet engine, to set the record straight, this was first patented by Frank Whittle in 1930. ( apologies to  Maxime Guillaume 1921.)
This post was produced without resorting to pages of meaningless mathematical mumbo jumbo but rather just stuck to plain facts.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #214 on: November 24, 2019, 03:40:41 AM »
Your video source for whatever has been completely debunked

You haven't debunked anything at all.

The video starting at 15:20 shows very clearly the passage of the jet plane above a balloon whose maximum altitude is 4,000 ft. The altimeter shows some 7,000 ft.

That is the real altitude of that plane, which was flying at cruising speed.

These are the facts.

When and where did you debunk anything?

Are you sure you are posting in the right thread?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #215 on: November 24, 2019, 03:47:06 AM »
You are unable to explain the insane claim that water stays in place in the form of oceans, sea, rivers, lakes, on the outside surface of a sphere.

That's been answered already!
You have not provided any kind of an explanation.
As YOU well know I have. If you don't accept my explanation there's little I can do about it.
But are YOU any more able to explain why "water stays in place in the form of oceans, sea, rivers, lakes, on the surface of your earth"?

Quote from: sandokhan
You claimed that gravity is not attractive.
Yes.
Quote from: sandokhan
Then, you tried to use general relativity,
Yes.
Quote from: sandokhan
which however is derived directly from Newton's attractive law of gravity, as plainly and directly shown in the paper quoted in my previous messages.
No, it is NOT! And the paper quoted in "your previous messages" does not "plainly and directly show" that General Relativity "is derived directly from Newton's attractive law of gravity"

Have YOU even read the paper?
Just look at even the title, "From Newtonís Universal Gravitation to Einsteinís Geometric Theory of Gravity by Donald H. Kobe and Ankit Srivastava".

That paper does not derive General Relativity "from Newton's attractive law of gravity" but traces the development of General Relativity.
If you bothered to read the paper you might learn that Donald H. Kobe and Ankit Srivastava show that under GR gravitation is an inertial resulting from the curvature of spacetime.

Quote
The intrinsic curvature of four-dimensional spacetime must involve the second derivatives of the metric component g00 with respect to all spacetime coordinates.

Quote from: sandokhan

So we are back where we started.

Please explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.
Already done a number of times! Why should I keep repeating myself?

*

Shifter

  • 15527
  • Flat Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #216 on: November 24, 2019, 03:53:58 AM »
JackBlack will probably have better answers because he's the scientist, not I!

Oh yeah. JackBlack thinks you're a poorly educated person as well as being a pretentious prick. You dont have any post nominals to put after your name so anything you have to say on the subject of science is rubbish

So not being a scientist but talking about science makes you a pretentious prick. Sorry. Those are JackBlacks words anyway, not mine
RIP rabinoz. Forum legend

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #217 on: November 24, 2019, 04:04:38 AM »
If you don't accept my explanation there's little I can do about it.

You haven't explained anything at all!

This is the crux of the problem.

You tried to use relativity, but it is based totally on Newton's attractive gravity model.

So we are back where we started.

Please explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere, for five billion years.

But are YOU any more able to explain why "water stays in place in the form of oceans, sea, rivers, lakes, on the surface of your earth"?

The surface of the Earth is flat!

No, it is NOT! And the paper quoted in "your previous messages" does not "plainly and directly show" that General Relativity "is derived directly from Newton's attractive law of gravity"

BUT IT DOES!

That paper does not derive General Relativity "from Newton's attractive law of gravity" but traces the development of General Relativity.

No, it derives Einstein's gravitational field equation DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF GRAVITATION.

If you bothered to read the paper you might learn that Donald H. Kobe and Ankit Srivastava show that under GR gravitation is an inertial resulting from the curvature of spacetime.

The authors derive Einstein's gravitational field equation DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF GRAVITATION.

The Laplacian of g00 measures the curvature and is derived from the Poisson equation, which in turn is derived directly from Newton's attractive gravity model.


Now, the proof.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdf

From Newtonís Universal Gravitation to Einsteinís Geometric Theory of Gravity

From the very start, section 2, the authors indicate and do mention that NEWTON'S APPROACH IS BASED TOTALLY ON THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITATION.


"In this paper Einsteinís gravitational field equation is obtained from a step-by-step generalization of Newtonian gravitation.

We thus obtain a single component of Einsteinís gravitational field equation in local coordinates. From the principle of general covariance applied to a single component, we obtain all tensor components of Einsteinís gravitational field equation.

The result is Einsteinís equation for the gravitational field."


EINSTEIN'S GRAVITATIONAL FIELD EQUATION OBTAINED DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITY.


"In most presentations of Einsteinís general theory of relativity[8] his gravitational field equation is given in tensor form as embodying some general principles.
It is then shown that in the limit of weak gravity and small speeds it reduces to Newtonian gravity.[9, 10, 11, 12] This top-down approach makes it difficult for the student to understand the gravitational field equation. In this paper we use a bottom-up approach to obtain Einsteinís field equation from Newtonís universal gravitation."


"Newtonís universal law of gravity[1] states that the attractive force F01(x0)..."


EVERYTHING THAT FOLLOWS IS BASED STRICTLY AND DIRECTLY ON THIS ATTRACTIVE GRAVITY MODEL.

You claimed that attractive gravity does not exist.

So there isn't any attractive gravity, we have you on record again.

Fine - you have ME on record! So what? I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

Then, General Relativity is just as wrong.

Now, explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere, for five billion years.

« Last Edit: November 24, 2019, 04:07:45 AM by sandokhan »

Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #218 on: November 24, 2019, 04:32:55 AM »
Five billion years is a bit of an exaggeration. Firstly the Earth is only 4.6 billion years old (geological rock analysis tells us that) and there was no water on Earth for about the few millions of years.  It was too hot.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #219 on: November 24, 2019, 04:47:55 AM »
If you don't accept my explanation there's little I can do about it.

I said that "there isn't any attractive gravity" big deal!

Then, General Relativity is just as wrong.
Incorrect and your claiming that it is "just as wrong" is quite meaningless empty words.

Quote from: sandokhan
Now, explain to your readers how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere, for five billion years.
After you explain what "sphere" had  "four trillion billion liters of water" next to it for "five billion years" !

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #220 on: November 24, 2019, 04:59:02 AM »
That paper does not derive General Relativity "from Newton's attractive law of gravity" but traces the development of General Relativity.

No, it derives Einstein's gravitational field equation DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF GRAVITATION.

If you bothered to read the paper you might learn that Donald H. Kobe and Ankit Srivastava show that under GR gravitation is an inertial resulting from the curvature of spacetime.

The authors derive Einstein's gravitational field equation DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S LAW OF GRAVITATION.

The Laplacian of g00 measures the curvature and is derived from the Poisson equation, which in turn is derived directly from Newton's attractive gravity model.


Now, the proof.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdf

From Newtonís Universal Gravitation to Einsteinís Geometric Theory of Gravity

From the very start, section 2, the authors indicate and do mention that NEWTON'S APPROACH IS BASED TOTALLY ON THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITATION.
"In this paper Einsteinís gravitational field equation is obtained from a step-by-step generalization of Newtonian gravitation.
But GR is not derived from Newtonian gravitation but even if it were GR does not claim that gravitation is an attractive force.
Gravitation under GR causes an inertial force just as centripetal acceleration causes an inertial force.

But this is all meaningless semantics so stop wasting everybody's time and start explaining a few things yourself!

*

Timeisup

  • 1244
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #221 on: November 24, 2019, 05:10:15 AM »
Ah...I think I get it now. Am I right in thinking the aim of this forum to totally ignore the original point of discussion and then argue about all sorts of random things that you have little in the way of practical knowledge about other than what you have picked up along the way?

One question I have who on this forum has a Ph.D. in physics or is a working scientist.

*

rvlvr

  • 1962
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #222 on: November 24, 2019, 05:33:13 AM »
I think Ph.D. only means you are shilling for the (indoctrinated) institution(s).
« Last Edit: November 24, 2019, 05:35:08 AM by rvlvr »

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #223 on: November 24, 2019, 06:18:08 AM »
But GR is not derived from Newtonian gravitation but even if it were

Are you scientifically illiterate?

Here is the reference which derives DIRECTLY in a straightforward manner Einstein's gravitational field equation from Newton's ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION MODEL.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdf

From Newtonís Universal Gravitation to Einsteinís Geometric Theory of Gravity

From the very start, section 2, the authors indicate and do mention that NEWTON'S APPROACH IS BASED TOTALLY ON THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITATION.

"Newtonís universal law of gravity[1] states that the attractive force F01(x0)..."

does not claim that gravitation is an attractive force.
Gravitation under GR causes an inertial force just as centripetal acceleration causes an inertial force.


General relativity HAS NO MECHANISM WHATSOEVER TO DESCRIBE GRAVITY.

General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

Dr. Erik Verlinde:

General Relativity remains just a description of the force we call gravity. It leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.


General Relativity HAS TO rely totally on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL.

This is what you wrote earlier:

The huge mass of the Earth bends spacetime

Explain to your readers HOW mass bends spacetime. You haven't done so at all.

No one else can explain how mass/matter interacts with spacetime, not even Einstein.

Einstein could not explain how mass warps space. What's worse is that with the advent of the Aharonov-Bohm effect (electromagnetic and gravitational) physicists found out that Einstein's general relativity is incomplete, since it cannot detect the gravitational potential:

G. 't Hooft discovered that "by using light rays alone, one cannot detect the scalar component of the energy-momentum tensor":

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.6675.pdf

Feynman resolved the energy-momentum tensor problem by the field approach: the gravity force between Newton's apple and the Earth is caused by the exchange of gravitons. Gravitons (real and virtual) are mediators of the gravitational interaction.

Then, you have a huge problem: how do gravitons produce curvature?

Again, general relativity DOES NOT offer any kind of a mechanism.

That is why physicists have to rely on Newton's attractive gravitational model.

Exactly proven in this paper.

Einstein's gravitational field equation is derived directly from the attractive gravitation equation of Newton.

From the very start, section 2, the authors indicate and do mention that NEWTON'S APPROACH IS BASED TOTALLY ON THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITATION.


"In this paper Einsteinís gravitational field equation is obtained from a step-by-step generalization of Newtonian gravitation.

We thus obtain a single component of Einsteinís gravitational field equation in local coordinates. From the principle of general covariance applied to a single component, we obtain all tensor components of Einsteinís gravitational field equation.

The result is Einsteinís equation for the gravitational field."


EINSTEIN'S GRAVITATIONAL FIELD EQUATION OBTAINED DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITY.


"In most presentations of Einsteinís general theory of relativity[8] his gravitational field equation is given in tensor form as embodying some general principles.
It is then shown that in the limit of weak gravity and small speeds it reduces to Newtonian gravity.[9, 10, 11, 12] This top-down approach makes it difficult for the student to understand the gravitational field equation. In this paper we use a bottom-up approach to obtain Einsteinís field equation from Newtonís universal gravitation."


Conclusion: the RE have no idea whatsoever how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.

« Last Edit: November 24, 2019, 11:53:00 AM by sandokhan »

*

Timeisup

  • 1244
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #224 on: November 24, 2019, 06:29:59 AM »
I think Ph.D. only means you are shilling for the (indoctrinated) institution(s).

Are you saying that you would be quite happy to be operated on by someone who had no medical qualifications? as I'm assuming that you are equating academic learning as being somehow caught up in some conspiracy.
 

*

Timeisup

  • 1244
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #225 on: November 24, 2019, 06:36:42 AM »
But GR is not derived from Newtonian gravitation but even if it were

Are you scientifically illiterate?

Here is the reference which derives DIRECTLY in a straightforward manner Einstein's gravitational field equation from Newton's ATTRACTIVE GRAVITATION MODEL.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1309.4789.pdf

From Newtonís Universal Gravitation to Einsteinís Geometric Theory of Gravity

From the very start, section 2, the authors indicate and do mention that NEWTON'S APPROACH IS BASED TOTALLY ON THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITATION.

"Newtonís universal law of gravity[1] states that the attractive force F01(x0)..."

does not claim that gravitation is an attractive force.
Gravitation under GR causes an inertial force just as centripetal acceleration causes an inertial force.


General relativity HAS NO MECHANISM WHATSOEVER TO DESCRIBE GRAVITY.

General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

General Relativity HAS TO rely totally on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL.

This is what you wrote earlier:

The huge mass of the Earth bends spacetime

Explain to your readers HOW mass bends spacetime. You haven't done so at all.

No one else can explain how mass/matter interacts with spacetime, not even Einstein.

Again, general relativity DOES NOT offer any kind of a mechanism.

That is why physicists have to rely on Newton's attractive gravitational model.

Exactly proven in this paper.

Einstein's gravitational field equation is derived directly from the attractive gravitation equation of Newton.

From the very start, section 2, the authors indicate and do mention that NEWTON'S APPROACH IS BASED TOTALLY ON THE ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITATION.


"In this paper Einsteinís gravitational field equation is obtained from a step-by-step generalization of Newtonian gravitation.

We thus obtain a single component of Einsteinís gravitational field equation in local coordinates. From the principle of general covariance applied to a single component, we obtain all tensor components of Einsteinís gravitational field equation.

The result is Einsteinís equation for the gravitational field."


EINSTEIN'S GRAVITATIONAL FIELD EQUATION OBTAINED DIRECTLY FROM NEWTON'S ATTRACTIVE LAW OF GRAVITY.


"In most presentations of Einsteinís general theory of relativity[8] his gravitational field equation is given in tensor form as embodying some general principles.
It is then shown that in the limit of weak gravity and small speeds it reduces to Newtonian gravity.[9, 10, 11, 12] This top-down approach makes it difficult for the student to understand the gravitational field equation. In this paper we use a bottom-up approach to obtain Einsteinís field equation from Newtonís universal gravitation."


Conclusion: the RE have no idea whatsoever how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.

Does anyone actually know what this poster is raving on about? The topic as I'm lead to believe is Radar Ranging in the Solar System. This person appears to ranting about random things on a topic he demonstrates he knows little to nothing about. It was he who early on derailed this discussion up this particular
Can you divulge your academic qualifications or do you, as I suspect just make your posts up as you go along, as there appears to be no logic in what you say. Your preference for quoting yourself is rather disturbing which appears to suggest that you are the only person who agrees with your own views.

*

rvlvr

  • 1962
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #226 on: November 24, 2019, 07:44:52 AM »
Sandokhan posts here, and on the other FE forum. I saw he posted something in scienceforums.net, but the thread was locked for obvious reasons.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2019, 07:46:42 AM by rvlvr »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #227 on: November 24, 2019, 12:21:05 PM »
But GR is not derived from Newtonian gravitation but even if it were
Go and learn about General Relativity and stop spamming the forum.

Now the topic is "Radar ranging in the Solar System" an gravitation is not relevant to the topic but this is:
Now stop wasting everybody's time.
But you could explain exactly your calculations leading your Sun being 600 m in diameter and 20 km, 15 km, 12 km or is it 10 km above the Earth.

So answer that to prove that you are a rational human being.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #228 on: November 24, 2019, 12:38:41 PM »
Conclusion: the RE have no idea whatsoever how four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere.
Incorrect!
"Four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere" by exactly the same thing that stops YOU flying off into space and that is gravitation.

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation is extraordinarily accurate for velocities << c and masses that are "not too large".
When velocities become appreciable compared to c or when close to huge masses Einstein's General Relativity gives the best current solution.

If YOU don't like it, tough cheese, as they say in the classics.

Now stop posting irrelevant material in this topic.

If you want to go on and on about gravitation make you own topic.
In that, you might start by explaining what holds your sun 20 km, 15 km, 12 km or is it 10 km (you seem to have NO idea which) above the Earth.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6483
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #229 on: November 24, 2019, 12:48:49 PM »
"Four trillion billion liters of water stay in place next to the outer surface of a sphere" by exactly the same thing that stops YOU flying off into space and that is gravitation.

Please describe the attractive mechanism by which a molecule of water is attracted by the Earth's iron/nickel core.

When velocities become appreciable compared to c or when close to huge masses Einstein's General Relativity gives the best current solution.

You still seem not to understand what is going on.

General relativity HAS NO MECHANISM WHATSOEVER TO DESCRIBE GRAVITY.

General Relativity postulates that gravity is a curvature of spacetime created by mass, but it does not explain how that curvature occurs. Actually, it is just a DESCRIPTION that leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.

Dr. Erik Verlinde:

General Relativity remains just a description of the force we call gravity. It leaves unanswered the key question of exactly how matter affects space and time.


General Relativity HAS TO rely totally on Newton's ATTRACTIVE MODEL.

This is what you wrote earlier:

The huge mass of the Earth bends spacetime

Explain to your readers HOW mass bends spacetime. You haven't done so at all.

No one else can explain how mass/matter interacts with spacetime, not even Einstein.

Einstein could not explain how mass warps space.
What's worse is that with the advent of the Aharonov-Bohm effect (electromagnetic and gravitational) physicists found out that Einstein's general relativity is incomplete, since it cannot detect the gravitational potential:

G. 't Hooft discovered that "by using light rays alone, one cannot detect the scalar component of the energy-momentum tensor":

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.6675.pdf

Feynman resolved the energy-momentum tensor problem by the field approach: the gravity force between Newton's apple and the Earth is caused by the exchange of gravitons. Gravitons (real and virtual) are mediators of the gravitational interaction.

Then, you have a huge problem: how do gravitons produce curvature?

Again, general relativity DOES NOT offer any kind of a mechanism.

That is why physicists have to rely on Newton's attractive gravitational model.

Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #230 on: November 24, 2019, 01:21:28 PM »
And you seem to be the one repeatedly bringing up that claim as well. You were the first to mention it in this thread.
You mean that is not your claim as well?
No, it is your claim.
If you want to defend it, go ahead.
Otherwise, stop bringing it up and start dealing with your other claims.

Do you know what that means?
It isn't the original set of equations.
Instead it is a derivation based upon an assumption.

You are trolling the upper forums, yet again.
No, that would still be you.
You fully admit that it is based upon an assumption, the very assumption which you are trying to prove.

i.e. you may as well be saying this:
"I'm right. If you assume I am right, then it clearly shows that I am right."

It is entirely circular and proving nothing.

Equations will not help you there.
Instead what you need is evidence.
i.e. if you want to prop up the aether model (which is directly contradicted by your equations) then you need to show that the speed of light is dependent upon your speed relative to the aether.
if you want to prop up the ballistic model (which doesn't use the aether at all) then you need to show that the speed of light is dependent upon the speed of the source.

But you have done neither.

Nothing is more insane than claiming that four trillion billion liters of water stay in place on the outside surface of a sphere for five billion years.
Sure there is. Someone repeatedly bringing it up in a thread where it doesn't belong and someone repeatedly trying to use themselves as a reference and pretending circular reasoning is valid and proves their assumption is true.


Now care to actually try and address the issues raised, rather than continuing to spam?
Again:
Where is your evidence for this magic dome of impossibility?
Where is your math to show the time values obtained for the moon and Venus?
Where is your explanation to avoid the fact that the prism splits light based upon the refractive index being dependent upon the wavelength?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why the prism is needed?
Where is your explanation, which doesn't rely upon the variable index of refraction to explain why red is on one side and blue is on the other?

*

Stash

  • 5962
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #231 on: November 24, 2019, 02:08:22 PM »
Your video source for whatever has been completely debunked

You haven't debunked anything at all.

The video starting at 15:20 shows very clearly the passage of the jet plane above a balloon whose maximum altitude is 4,000 ft. The altimeter shows some 7,000 ft.

That is the real altitude of that plane, which was flying at cruising speed.

These are the facts.

When and where did you debunk anything?

Are you sure you are posting in the right thread?

You have not done your homework again. The altimeter he shows is the pressurization of the cabin which is pressurized to an "altitude" between 6-8000 ft. Hence his reading of 7000.

Have you ever flown on a plane? Do you not understand why a cabin is pressurized? And do you really believe every pilot, ever air traffic controller, every manufacturer of aircraft thinks their plane is at one altitude when they are really at another one 10's of thousands of feet off? How would they calculate their fuel? How would planes not be crashing into each other left, right, and center if the true altitudes are that wrong?

That's your logic? And all based upon a video of some nut job who thinks planes don't use fuel, the windows should be bigger than they are for reasons, planes aren't really as big as we think they are, etc., etc., etc.,

He was measuring the cabin pressure. How do you not get that? I thought you were smarter than that. Apparently I was wrong.

Go ahead, hang your theories on that guy's miserable video. Your credibility as a scientist and thinker just plummeted.

In the mean time, here's a debunking of your video and everything Enslaved by No Media has ever said about aviation.


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #232 on: November 25, 2019, 12:37:14 AM »

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 1984
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #233 on: November 27, 2019, 05:05:35 AM »
~15 kilometers?! Like less than two Everests?

What the hell?

Like, if you drove around you would see the sun rise and recede faster than distant mountains. Holy shit that is easy to disprove.
He is a new kind of crazy, thinking he is smart behind his copy pasta

Re: Radar ranging in the Solar System
« Reply #234 on: November 27, 2019, 05:21:47 AM »
Sandokhan, how dare you peddle your faulty wares here? You tried to convince a peer group on another forum, and got locked out, right? So even though you know you are wrong, you continue as if it makes it okay?
Getting locked out of an internet forum is proof of what?