Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #80 on: March 27, 2021, 02:23:32 PM »
NASA announced this morning that a "possibility" of the Earth being struck by the asteroid Apophis in 2068 has now been dismissed following a most recent analysis of its current position and orbit: 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-analysis-earth-is-safe-from-asteroid-apophis-for-100-plus-years

In fact, they predict that there is no possibility of this particular asteroid hitting Earth for at least 100 years.  That's a relief. 

Would it be Tom's position that he concurs, on the basis that there is no previous evidence of this asteroid striking Earth?  How would FE predict an unprecedented event? 

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 775
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #81 on: March 27, 2021, 02:24:55 PM »
The ability to predict something doesn't mean that you predicted it based on the underlying laws. I can predict that my town is going to be hot in the summer and cold in the winter, and I can do that regardless of what model or physical laws actually exist to make that happen. You are mistaking prediction accuracy for full understanding and simulation of the underlying laws

Numerical models are merely approximations, and there are numerous references for this.

So is the DE405 ephemeris model, for example, not based on physical laws then, in your view? Despite all the supporting documentation saying that it absolutely is?

Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #82 on: March 27, 2021, 03:56:40 PM »
If gravity is actually universal acceleration, why does the moon and Jupiter have different gravitational attraction?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #83 on: March 27, 2021, 06:36:12 PM »
The ability to predict something doesn't mean that you predicted it based on the underlying laws. I can predict that my town is going to be hot in the summer and cold in the winter, and I can do that regardless of what model or physical laws actually exist to make that happen. You are mistaking prediction accuracy for full understanding and simulation of the underlying laws

As I pointed out above, the behaviour of an eclipse, describing what people on the ground will actually see, as opposed to merely predicting date and time, can be predicted in advance. We've seen the predictions, based on a globe earth, and we've seen that nobody reported anything outwith the predicted behaviour. The folks who predict this can outline the basis upon which they are making the prediction. They can tell you which laws they have based it on.

You saying that they may not have needed to use said laws to make an approximate prediction is not of itself a proof that they did not use those laws in making a detailed prediction.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #84 on: March 28, 2021, 11:51:26 AM »
Numerical models are merely approximations, and there are numerous references for this.
They are approximations in the same way that this is an approximation of pi

3. 141592653589793238462643383279

That’s not the exact value because pi is irrational. But in real life that is more than enough digits to calculate values for all practical purposes.

You have been shown that the n body problem can be solved by breaking it into a series of 2 body problems which can be solved - so clearly using the underlying laws. And while it’s not a perfect solution we have close up photos of Pluto, a network of GPS satellites, the ISS and a rover on Mars. And eclipse paths are calculated down to city block level, you can’t do that with a Saros cycle. So these problems are solved in every practical sense.

Your repeated mistake is to think that a solution has to be perfect to be useful and the lack of a perfect solution is in some way damning. There’s no such thing as an accurate long term weather forecast because of the complexity of the atmosphere and the chaotic nature of the maths. That doesn’t mean the weather doesn’t exist or that all the underlying laws are flawed.
Meanwhile the closest you guys have to a working theory is an equation for EA which has no derivation and contains a constant with an unknown value. Can you name one prediction that FET can make about the world?

So while sure, there are things which mainstream science still has to figure out, FET doesn’t seem to have anything figured out. And that’s the horse you’re backing? ???
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline scomato

  • *
  • Posts: 175
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #85 on: March 28, 2021, 08:21:09 PM »
Numerical models are merely approximations, and there are numerous references for this.
They are approximations in the same way that this is an approximation of pi

3. 141592653589793238462643383279

That’s not the exact value because pi is irrational. But in real life that is more than enough digits to calculate values for all practical purposes.

You have been shown that the n body problem can be solved by breaking it into a series of 2 body problems which can be solved - so clearly using the underlying laws. And while it’s not a perfect solution we have close up photos of Pluto, a network of GPS satellites, the ISS and a rover on Mars. And eclipse paths are calculated down to city block level, you can’t do that with a Saros cycle. So these problems are solved in every practical sense.

Your repeated mistake is to think that a solution has to be perfect to be useful and the lack of a perfect solution is in some way damning. There’s no such thing as an accurate long term weather forecast because of the complexity of the atmosphere and the chaotic nature of the maths. That doesn’t mean the weather doesn’t exist or that all the underlying laws are flawed.
Meanwhile the closest you guys have to a working theory is an equation for EA which has no derivation and contains a constant with an unknown value. Can you name one prediction that FET can make about the world?

So while sure, there are things which mainstream science still has to figure out, FET doesn’t seem to have anything figured out. And that’s the horse you’re backing? ???

If the obvious facts are able to convince flat earthers that they are wrong, there wouldn't have been any flat earthers to begin with.

Trying to come here to convince people otherwise is a losing battle that only feeds the beast, because flat earth is a product of mass psychological reactance. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4675534/

It's a well understood quirk in the behavior of our primitive human brains that, when confronted with a threat to free-behavior; ie "Being persuaded to buy a specific product in the grocery store, being forced to pay tuition fees, being prohibited from using a mobile phone in school, and being instructed to perform work for the boss are all examples of threats to the freedom to act as desired, and this is where reactance comes into play. Reactance is an unpleasant motivational arousal that emerges when people experience a threat to or loss of their free behaviors. It serves as a motivator to restore one’s freedom." 

So of course there are Flat Earthers, when we live in a society where belief in a Flat Earth is not really allowed, it carries the cost of ridicule and intellectual disrespect by regular members of society. For people whose belief in flat earth overrides their will to confront the truth, who are furthermore told that they 'must believe' that the Earth is round, psychological reactance would predict those people to double down on their beliefs because in that moment they are not experiencing education or persuasion, they are experiencing an assault on their freedom of belief.

And its not like you or I are immune to reactance either. When the Government prohibits drugs, people go out of their way to get them. When a high school principal bans tank tops, all the guys will show up the next day wearing tanktops in protest. https://www.greeleytribune.com/2013/05/18/high-school-boys-protest-dress-code/ It's why classified and secret government documents have so much appeal, the more restricted they are to us, the more we want to see what's inside. It is connected to the Streisand Effect as well.

If Joe Biden were to tweet, right now, 'I believe that Americans should not be allowed to own Assault Shotguns' you would wish you held stock in those shotgun companies because those products are going to be flying off the shelves. It's just our human nature to be like that.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10244
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #86 on: March 29, 2021, 07:42:47 PM »
Yup. And we're still waiting for Tom to follow up on his "There are many problems with RE" statement.

It's pretty much documented in the Wiki.

The question for me at this point is more of a matter of what does work, rather than what doesn't work. I also suspect that the topics described are incomplete on the numerous issues plaguing RE. The problems and anomalies and contradictions tend to be suppressed and ignored rather than publicized and celebrated.

Here are some I find interesting:

Mechanics

The physics of the giant RE galaxies don't work - https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies

The model of the RE Sun doesn't work - https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Inconsistent_Brightness:_A_Round_Earth_Mystery

Cosmology

RE Cosmology doesn't work. Scientific American calls modern cosmology a folk tale - https://wiki.tfes.org/Cosmology_Has_Some_Big_Problems

Perspective

The celestial bodies don't shrink according to the laws of perspective.

RE Stars don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

RE Galaxies don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies#Angular_Size_of_Galaxies

Gravity

Can't truly model more than two bodies at a time - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem

The equivalency of gravitational and inertial mass, as seen in laboratory experiment, is a coincidence, even in GR - https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle

Astrophysicist Ryan Martin: "As we will see, both Newton’s Universal Theory of Gravity and Einstein Theory of General Relativity assume that the two are indeed equal. In fact, it is a key requirement for Einstein’s Theory that the two be equal (the assumption that they are equal is called the “Equivalence Principle”). You should however keep in mind that there is no physical reason that the two are the same, and that as far as we know, it is a coincidence!"

Variations of gravity inconsistent, contradictory - https://wiki.tfes.org/Variations_in_Gravity

Relativity

Light's velocity does not change on a horizonal plane from the earth's movement around the Sun, but does change when the detectors and receivers move in a laboratory experiment.

Earth's movement has no affect on light velocity on an experiment on a horizontal plane - https://wiki.tfes.org/Michelson-Morley_Experiment

Devices with moving detectors and receivers in a laboratory do measure a change - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sagnac_Experiment

Also, a change is detected on a vertical plane - https://wiki.tfes.org/Evidence_for_Universal_Acceleration#Vertical_Michelson-Morley_Experiments
« Last Edit: March 29, 2021, 09:07:28 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #87 on: March 29, 2021, 09:08:05 PM »
I picked one at random;

RE Stars don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

1. The Wiki is about vintage stuff. Astronomers looking through vintage/early telescopes and such. We've moved on since then.

2. How does this have any bearing on the shape of the Earth?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3445
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #88 on: March 29, 2021, 09:45:37 PM »
Perspective

The celestial bodies don't shrink according to the laws of perspective.

RE Stars don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

Funny, I picked the same one to look at as Tumeni. Because it is the one I'm least familiar with. The wiki entry consists solely of citing articles by Prof Christopher M. Graney & Dennis Danielson. One article in particular you mention, "The Case Against Copernicus", is a really interesting historical view into how Copernican theory took hold and why, and how, at the time, there wasn't a lot of evidence to support it, mostly due to technological constraints of the day. However you cite it as some sort of proof that there is something inherently wrong with heliocentrism.

So you went through the article and teased out (read: cherry-picked) some paragraphs that you thought would support your position. However, in your cherry-picking you failed to include in the wiki the conclusion of their article which is as follows:

"Back in Galileo’s and Riccioli’s day, however, those opposed to Copernicanism had some quite respectable, coherent, observationally based science on their side. They were eventually proved wrong, but that did not make them bad scientists. In fact, rigorously disproving the strong arguments of others was and is part of the challenge, as well as part of the fun, of doing science."
https://physics.ucf.edu/~britt/Geophysics/Readings/R2The%20case%20against%20Copernicus.pdf

So there again, you take something completely out of context, from a source that actually contradicts you, and claim that it somehow supports your point of view. This seems to be a trend across the entire wiki, not just isolated here. Why do you do that when you know anyone can just look up the source and see that it's not claiming at all what you say it does?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10244
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #89 on: March 29, 2021, 09:59:53 PM »
I picked one at random;

RE Stars don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

1. The Wiki is about vintage stuff. Astronomers looking through vintage/early telescopes and such. We've moved on since then.

2. How does this have any bearing on the shape of the Earth?

It doesn't matter how old it is. It's still RE cannon. You guys also still quote RE proofs from 300 B.C. and call that cannon.

The stars should shrink to perspective in the giant RE universe needed by heliocentrism. They don't. Optical Illusions are postulated. This is a problem because those observations are contradicted by Galileo's experiment in the link and the use of the apparent sizes of the planets in Astronomy. It is also a problem that you say that the FE sun should shrink to perspective while ignoring your own stars.

Quote from: stack
Funny, I picked the same one to look at as Tumeni. Because it is the one I'm least familiar with. The wiki entry consists solely of citing articles by Prof Christopher M. Graney & Dennis Danielson. One article in particular you mention, "The Case Against Copernicus", is a really interesting historical view into how Copernican theory took hold and why, and how, at the time, there wasn't a lot of evidence to support it, mostly due to technological constraints of the day. However you cite it as some sort of proof that there is something inherently wrong with heliocentrism.

So you went through the article and teased out (read: cherry-picked) some paragraphs that you thought would support your position. However, in your cherry-picking you failed to include in the wiki the conclusion of their article which is as follows:

"Back in Galileo’s and Riccioli’s day, however, those opposed to Copernicanism had some quite respectable, coherent, observationally based science on their side. They were eventually proved wrong, but that did not make them bad scientists. In fact, rigorously disproving the strong arguments of others was and is part of the challenge, as well as part of the fun, of doing science."
https://physics.ucf.edu/~britt/Geophysics/Readings/R2The%20case%20against%20Copernicus.pdf

So there again, you take something completely out of context, from a source that actually contradicts you, and claim that it somehow supports your point of view. This seems to be a trend across the entire wiki, not just isolated here. Why do you do that when you know anyone can just look up the source and see that it's not claiming at all what you say it does?

Incorrect. That is not what the Wiki says. The Wiki doesn't say that you can't get illusions to work in RE. The Wiki says that they did get it to work, with the illusions. According to the official heliocentrisism vs. geocentrism story they think it was proven wrong, by postulating these optical illusions. That sentence is correct.

The problem is that you are invoking illusions to explain the diameter of the stars, which Professor Graney says is contradicted by various things. He calls Galileo's experiments which contradict the illusion to be lies and Astronomers who use the sizes of planets by their apparent sizes to be "nonsense".

It's also a problem that the RE stars and RE galaxies don't shrink to perspective, and illusions are invoked, while you simultaneously criticize the size of the FE Sun not shrinking to perspective.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2021, 10:33:52 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3445
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #90 on: March 29, 2021, 10:12:08 PM »
I picked one at random;

RE Stars don't shrink to perspective: https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

1. The Wiki is about vintage stuff. Astronomers looking through vintage/early telescopes and such. We've moved on since then.

2. How does this have any bearing on the shape of the Earth?

It doesn't matter how old it is. It's still RE cannon. You guys also still quote RE proofs from 300 B.C and call that cannon.

The stars should shrink to perspective in the giant RE universe needed by heliocentrism. They don't. Optical Illusions are postulated. This is a problem because those observations are contradicted by other things, and you also say that the FE sun should shrink to perspective while ignoring your own stars.

Quote from: stack
Funny, I picked the same one to look at as Tumeni. Because it is the one I'm least familiar with. The wiki entry consists solely of citing articles by Prof Christopher M. Graney & Dennis Danielson. One article in particular you mention, "The Case Against Copernicus", is a really interesting historical view into how Copernican theory took hold and why, and how, at the time, there wasn't a lot of evidence to support it, mostly due to technological constraints of the day. However you cite it as some sort of proof that there is something inherently wrong with heliocentrism.

So you went through the article and teased out (read: cherry-picked) some paragraphs that you thought would support your position. However, in your cherry-picking you failed to include in the wiki the conclusion of their article which is as follows:

"Back in Galileo’s and Riccioli’s day, however, those opposed to Copernicanism had some quite respectable, coherent, observationally based science on their side. They were eventually proved wrong, but that did not make them bad scientists. In fact, rigorously disproving the strong arguments of others was and is part of the challenge, as well as part of the fun, of doing science."
https://physics.ucf.edu/~britt/Geophysics/Readings/R2The%20case%20against%20Copernicus.pdf

So there again, you take something completely out of context, from a source that actually contradicts you, and claim that it somehow supports your point of view. This seems to be a trend across the entire wiki, not just isolated here. Why do you do that when you know anyone can just look up the source and see that it's not claiming at all what you say it does?

The Wiki doesn't say that you can't get illusions to work in RE. According to the official heliocentric vs geocentrism story it was proven wrong, by postulating these optical illusions.

The problem is that you are invoking illusions, which Professor Graney says is contradicted by various things. He calls Galileo's experiments that contract it to be lies and Astronomers who use the sizes of planets by their apparent sizes to be "nonsense".

Yet Professor Graney concludes:

"Back in Galileo’s and Riccioli’s day, however, those opposed to Copernicanism had some quite respectable, coherent, observationally based science on their side. They were eventually proved wrong"

See the "They were eventually proved wrong" bit? In summation, Professor Graney directly contradicts you regardless of what he says about Galileo's experiments performed 100's of years ago. Can you not fully comprehend that part of his sentence? Get it? Those opposed to Copernicanism were eventually proved wrong according to your source. Eventually. That's what the good professor's article is all about: Hundreds of years ago there was a great lack of evidence supporting heliocentrism.
But the Professor still concludes that those opposed to Copernicanism were eventually proved wrong.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10244
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #91 on: March 29, 2021, 10:17:14 PM »
According to the official story of Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism the heliocentrists do think it was proven wrong, with the optical illusions. I don't see an issue with that context.

We can see that you won't even attempt to address the contradictions and will just continue quoting sentences out of context, perpetuating your poor defense of this and showing us all that you have nothing.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2021, 10:19:53 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3445
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #92 on: March 29, 2021, 10:42:43 PM »
According to the official story of Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism the heliocentrists do think it was proven wrong, with the optical illusions. I don't see an issue with that context.

We can see that you won't even attempt to address the contradictions and will just continue quoting sentences out of context, perpetuating your poor defense of this and showing us all that you have nothing.

The context of the article is that 100's of years ago, heliocentrism wasn't well evidenced and wasn't a religious fight as commonly conveyed, it was actually a scientific one. The opening premise:

"Copernicus famously said that Earth revolves around the sun. But opposition to this revolutionary idea didn’t come just from the religious authorities. Evidence favored a different cosmology."

And in the conclusion of the article, which is certainly not out of context at all, the bookend to the opening of the piece, is:

"Back in Galileo’s and Riccioli’s day, however, those opposed to Copernicanism had some quite respectable, coherent, observationally based science on their side. They were eventually proved wrong, but that did not make them bad scientists. In fact, rigorously disproving the strong arguments of others was and is part of the challenge, as well as part of the fun, of doing science."

What could be more contextual than their closing statement and more contradictory to your position? Nothing.

Do I need to cite also in the article where they state the evidence amassed much after Gallileo's age in support of heliocentrism? It's all right there in the article you seemed to have omitted. Do you dispute their closing statement?

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #93 on: March 29, 2021, 10:43:55 PM »
It doesn't matter how old it is. It's still RE cannon. You guys also still quote RE proofs from 300 B.C. and call that cannon.

The stars should shrink to perspective in the giant RE universe needed by heliocentrism. They don't. Optical Illusions are postulated. This is a problem because those observations are contradicted by Galileo's experiment in the link and the use of the apparent sizes of the planets in Astronomy. It is also a problem that you say that the FE sun should shrink to perspective while ignoring your own stars.

I specifically stated that we've moved on since then. I'm sure that the instruments and optics used today are far better than those used by Galileo, Copernicus and their peers.

Can you cite any more recent observations than Galileo's to show that "the stars don't shrink to perspective" ?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10244
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #94 on: March 29, 2021, 11:25:29 PM »
According to the official story of Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism the heliocentrists do think it was proven wrong, with the optical illusions. I don't see an issue with that context.

We can see that you won't even attempt to address the contradictions and will just continue quoting sentences out of context, perpetuating your poor defense of this and showing us all that you have nothing.

The context of the article is that 100's of years ago, heliocentrism wasn't well evidenced and wasn't a religious fight as commonly conveyed, it was actually a scientific one. The opening premise:

"Copernicus famously said that Earth revolves around the sun. But opposition to this revolutionary idea didn’t come just from the religious authorities. Evidence favored a different cosmology."

And in the conclusion of the article, which is certainly not out of context at all, the bookend to the opening of the piece, is:

"Back in Galileo’s and Riccioli’s day, however, those opposed to Copernicanism had some quite respectable, coherent, observationally based science on their side. They were eventually proved wrong, but that did not make them bad scientists. In fact, rigorously disproving the strong arguments of others was and is part of the challenge, as well as part of the fun, of doing science."

You're just quoting the same sentence over and over about how something was "proved wrong" by heliocentrists. They do think that they proved it wrong. No issue with that statement.

However, your explanation for the star illusion only works if you call Galileo a liar, and that he is perpetuating fake experiments which contradict your illusion theory. It's not really a good theory if you have to champion Galileo in one sentence and call him a scientific fraud in the next. I would suggest that you guys work on getting your act together.

I specifically stated that we've moved on since then. I'm sure that the instruments and optics used today are far better than those used by Galileo, Copernicus and their peers.

Can you cite any more recent observations than Galileo's to show that "the stars don't shrink to perspective" ?

Your star problems and illusions are still cannon. You didn't move on. The story explains the problem and how it was solved with an illusion. The author Prof. Graney also says that the illusion is contradicted by other experiments.

Kepler is still cited for his laws of planetary motion, Newton is still cited on gravity, and Galileo is still cited for heliocentrism and his Equivalence Principle experiments. Einstein came up with Relativity over 100 years ago. Aristotle's proofs are thousands of years old, and still cited. Don't tell me that if it's old that you guys throw it away.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2021, 12:01:35 AM by Tom Bishop »

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #95 on: March 30, 2021, 12:16:14 AM »
Quote
The equivalency of gravitational and inertial mass, as seen in laboratory experiment, is a coincidence, even in GR - https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle

Not true.

Quote
Finally Einstein's reinterpretation eradicates an awkwardness of Newtonian theory. That theory had to posit that increases in gravitational mass in bodies are perfectly and exactly compensated by corresponding increases in inertial mass, so that the uniqueness of free fall can be preserved. Einstein's redescription does away with that coincidence and even the very idea of distinct inertial and gravitational masses. In his theory, bodies now just have mass, or, in the light of special relativity, mass-energy. For Einstein the primitive notion is the geometrical structure of spacetime with the curved trajectories traced out by all freely falling bodies, independently of their mass.

https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity/
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10244
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #96 on: March 30, 2021, 12:26:10 AM »
Quote
The equivalency of gravitational and inertial mass, as seen in laboratory experiment, is a coincidence, even in GR - https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle

Not true.

Quote
Finally Einstein's reinterpretation eradicates an awkwardness of Newtonian theory. That theory had to posit that increases in gravitational mass in bodies are perfectly and exactly compensated by corresponding increases in inertial mass, so that the uniqueness of free fall can be preserved. Einstein's redescription does away with that coincidence and even the very idea of distinct inertial and gravitational masses. In his theory, bodies now just have mass, or, in the light of special relativity, mass-energy. For Einstein the primitive notion is the geometrical structure of spacetime with the curved trajectories traced out by all freely falling bodies, independently of their mass.

https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/general_relativity/

My source who says that it's still a coincidence is a physicist - https://www.queensu.ca/physics/ryan-martin

Your source who says the opposite is someone with a history and philosophy degree - http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/jdnorton.html#Bio

Physicist > Someone with a history and philosophy degree
« Last Edit: March 30, 2021, 12:41:40 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10244
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #97 on: March 30, 2021, 12:47:30 AM »
Another quote from Anatoly Alekseyevich Logunov, a theoretical physcist:

https://pdfroom.com/books/the-theory-of-gravity/X623zYb6g4Z

"GRT does not comply with the equivalence principle,
does not explain the equality of the inert and active
gravitational masses, and gives no unique prediction
for gravitational effects. It does not contain the usual
conservation laws of energy–momentum and of angu-
lar momentum of matter."

GRT = General Relativity Theory, as defined earlier in the paper:

"Therein, also, critical comments are presented con-
cerning general relativity theory (GRT), which still remain in
force."

Here is another quote, from a publication of the AIAA on p.99:

"Newton proposed two formulas: the law of motion, F = ma, and the law of gravitation, F = GMm/r2. The mass, m, has two distinct meanings in the two formulas, one as the receptacle of inertia, the other as the source and receptacle of gravitation; yet somehow the two are identical. Stated another way, if mi and mg are respectively inertial and gravitational mass, then for any two bodies A and B, regardless of what substance they are, the quantity



appears to be identically zero. It was just this identity that Einstein denominated a principle (weak equivalence) and extended (strong equivalence) to all the laws of phyics in accelerated frames, whether the acceleration is ineitial or gravitational in origin. Strong equivalence is the basis on which it becomes possible in general relativity to represent gravitation by a curvature of spacetime. Contrary to what is sometimes thought, however, general relativity does not explain equivalence. The principle is an assumption that, once made, allows the effects of gravity to be represented thus. The phenomenon remains a mystery and still needs testing."

Offline fisherman

  • *
  • Posts: 217
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #98 on: March 30, 2021, 12:59:41 AM »
Quote
My source who says that it's still a coincidence is a physicist - https://www.queensu.ca/physics/ryan-martin

Your source who says the opposite is someone with a history and philosophy degree - http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/jdnorton.html#Bio

Physicist > Someone with a history and philosophy degree


LOL, John Norton's creds are good enough that you cite him on your own wiki, multiple times.  All taken out of context of course.  He is considered one of the world's leading academics on Einstein and worked on the Einstein Papers Project. 

Quote
John Norton, an internationally recognized expert in the science of Albert Einstein, has published extensively on Einstein’s discoveries of general relativity, special relativity and the light quantum and also on philosophical aspects of Einstein’s work. He has been a contributing editor to the publication of Einstein’s collected papers and serves on the publication project’s advisory board. His most notable achievement was the analysis of the “Zurich Notebook,” which contains private calculations made by Einstein in preparation for his greatest discovery, the general theory of relativity
.

You might want to familarize your self with his CV.

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/homepage/cv.html

or his wikipedia page

Quote
Norton is considered an authority on the science of Albert Einstein and the philosophy of science. He has published on general relativity, special relativity, the relationship between thermodynamics and information processing, quantum physics, and the genesis of scientific theories. He is well known for his analysis of Einstein's "Zurich Notebook," a small, brown notebook which contains Einstein's private day-to-day calculations during a critical period (1912–1913) in his development of general relativity.[4] The trio of Einstein scholars, John Norton, John Stachel, and John Earman, have sometimes been jokingly referred to as John3 = John Norton × John Stachel × John Earman.[5]
There are two kinds of people in the world.  Those that can infer logical conclusions from given information

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10244
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Is there anything that RET cannot explain?
« Reply #99 on: March 30, 2021, 01:05:08 AM »
He's not a physicist. He's a historian and a philosopher. It doesn't matter if he writes about it. He doesn't know the physics as well as an expert in physics. I have quoted multiple physicists. Physicists would know physics to a better degree than a historian and a philosopher would.

I would suggest getting better qualified expert sources than that paltry attempt. Telling a story is different than knowing the physics.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2021, 01:11:46 AM by Tom Bishop »