The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: Mr. Blackwell on December 06, 2014, 08:21:45 PM
-
Hi, I don't know anything about flat earth theory so I hope this question hasn't already been asked or addressed a million times. If it has, please accept my apology and point me in the right direction. :)
I think I have a vague understanding of how the earth rotates on it's axis according to round earth theory. How it tilts a little and wobbles.
I guess I have two questions about the flat earth.
1. Does it rotate like a frisbie or like a coin being flipped?
2. Is everything on one side or is there something on the other side?
Here is a short video which illustrated my current understanding of how the earth moves through the galaxy based on being a roundish sphere falling into the suns gravitational well.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU
-
1. The Earth does not rotate. It is not a globe, and it is not orbiting anything. The Sun and Moon discs, however, do circle above the Earth in what could be called a rotation.
2) Human civilization is on one side. What's on the other side is still inconclusive. The Earth is actually accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/s^2), making life on the other side probably impossible because there is no gravitational pull (as you know it), and the Earth would simply float off above something below it.
-
I visualize the earth as falling down, not moving up....is there a significant difference between how the force of momentum would keep us firmly rooted on the ground between up vs. down? Right vs. left or any other direction?
Is there a graphic to illustrate how the flat earth moves through the galaxy or how the sun and moon move around the earth? Is every large celestial body a disk? I am a visual learner. Since I am new to this I will naturally have a bazillion questions. Thank you for answering the first two.
They really didn't make much sense to me but I don't expect much here will...that's not a slam against flat earth theory mind you, I also do not have a great understanding of the currently accepted model either.
Fair warning, I am not smart enough to debunk anyone and won't be trying to prove anything. All my questions are born from natural curiosity. I don't often engage in dialectics.
-
All your questions have been answered in our extensive wiki. Here (http://wiki.tfes.org/FAQ) is a link to the basic FAQs, from there you can find many diagrams showing how the Flat Earth works. Keep in mind that our community is not entirely in agreement about how every detail works, so you will encounter many theories depending on who's answering the questions.
I visualize the earth as falling down, not moving up....is there a significant difference between how the force of momentum would keep us firmly rooted on the ground between up vs. down? Right vs. left or any other direction?
I'm not sure what you're asking here. The Earth moves up at 9.8m/s^2, which emulates what you know of as 'gravity'. Round Earth science teaches that gravity is what holds us to the Earth, but it's really an upward momentum that holds us down. We know this to be true because the speed of an object falling freely near the Earth's surface will increase by about 9.81 metres (32.2 ft) per second every second. The Earth only moves upward. It does not move sideways, downward, diagonally, etc.
-
Thank you, I will check out the link.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. The Earth moves up at 9.8m/s^2, which emulates what you know of as 'gravity'. Round Earth science teaches that gravity is what holds us to the Earth, but it's really an upward momentum that holds us down. We know this to be true because the speed of an object falling freely near the Earth's surface will increase by about 9.81 metres (32.2 ft) per second every second.
I guess what I am asking is a matter of perspective. If we are only on one side of the earth and the force of the earth moving is what holds us to the ground then to me it doesn't seem to be very important which direction the earth is actually moving just so long as our back are against the wall and facing the direction in which the earth happens to be moving. I guess I am thinking of something like centrifugal force. Or like the feeling you get whenever you are in a car that has a lot of horse power which can take off at a high rate of speed...as the car accelerates forward it is moving faster than your body at that moment, you feel your body being pressed against the seat.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDYJ4SBxbiQ
So to me, lets say if the earth wasn't moving up and we jumped...then we would never "fall" because the earth would not be moving to catch up with us. In my mind it works the same way if we are facing down. The downward moment of the earth moving faster than our own body after we jump would be the same wouldn't it?
I don't know if I am explaining my question clearly. I just don't understand why the earth necessarily must be moving up.
-
I think I understand. It is a matter of perspective entirely. There is no up and down in space. We could technically be moving sideways, upwards, and downwards all at the same time because it is all relative in space. I agree that it doesn't make a difference.
-
1. The Earth does not rotate. It is not a globe, and it is not orbiting anything. The Sun and Moon discs, however, do circle above the Earth in what could be called a rotation.
2) Human civilization is on one side. What's on the other side is still inconclusive. The Earth is actually accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/s^2), making life on the other side probably impossible because there is no gravitational pull (as you know it), and the Earth would simply float off above something below it.
So if the world is flat, and the sun rotates around in the sky, it would be clearly visible from anywhere on the planet at all times, I know the cop out on this is then a spot light sun, but then explain why you can't see the sun at all times using infrared imaging.
If the Earth is constantly accelerating then at this point we must be closing in on the speed of light, why have we not seen any side affects of this due to time dilation?
-
So if the world is flat, and the sun rotates around in the sky, it would be clearly visible from anywhere on the planet at all times, I know the cop out on this is then a spot light sun, but then explain why you can't see the sun at all times using infrared imaging.
It would not be visible from everywhere on Earth. The light bends due to the magnetic force of the heavens. This is called Bendy Light Theory, I suggest you look it up in our wiki.
If the Earth is constantly accelerating then at this point we must be closing in on the speed of light, why have we not seen any side affects of this due to time dilation?
http://wiki.tfes.org/UA
Please see: "Why doesn't the Earth's velocity reach the speed of light?"
-
So if the world is flat, and the sun rotates around in the sky, it would be clearly visible from anywhere on the planet at all times, I know the cop out on this is then a spot light sun, but then explain why you can't see the sun at all times using infrared imaging.
It would not be visible from everywhere on Earth. The light bends due to the magnetic force of the heavens. This is called Bendy Light Theory, I suggest you look it up in our wiki.
If the Earth is constantly accelerating then at this point we must be closing in on the speed of light, why have we not seen any side affects of this due to time dilation?
http://wiki.tfes.org/UA
Please see: "Why doesn't the Earth's velocity reach the speed of light?"
If the magnetic field is strong enough to bend light at such extreme angles then why doesnt it bend light under all circumstances. It should be observable across all aspects of reality.
Ok, garbage equations arent needed to disprove to UA. Hear me out. Lets do this like a geometry proof.
UA theory says Earth is constantly accelerating to maintain the gravity like effects.
Speed of light is constant.
Dark energy apparently doesnt have the juice to make the Earth reach light speed.
Then earth cannot continuously accelerate since dark energy cannot continue to accelerate it.
UA theory falls apart.
The only way you can say that works is if the speed of light increases constantly.
-
Just because you don't understand the equations doesn't mean they're "garbage equations". Maybe do a bit of research then come back?
-
Just because you don't understand the equations doesn't mean they're "garbage equations". Maybe do a bit of research then come back?
Just going to ignore the proof I see.
I don't need to understand an equation that purports to explain everything when I can simply think through the theory and show its impossible. To maintain the gravitational constant under your UA theory the earth must continue to accelerate at a constant speed.
That equation you say answers it just states what Einstein already said, the closer you get to the speed of light the energy needed to get there approaches infinity which means the mass of the object approaches infinity. Only now it says that obviously duh, its because dark energy cant reach infinity.
The fallacy of UA theory is in its own efforts to describe itself. Hiding that fallacy behind a made up equation doesn't change the massive logic holes in it.
-
Just because you don't understand the equations doesn't mean they're "garbage equations". Maybe do a bit of research then come back?
Just going to ignore the proof I see.
I don't see any proof of anything. Care to elaborate on how you came to this conclusion about dark energy? Are you a physicist? Have you done the math? Do you even understand the frankly elementary formulas displayed in the UA wiki page?
Just because you say "Dark energy isn't powerful enough to push the Earth" doesn't make it so. You need supporting evidence. Please come back when you've done the math.
And yes, you need to understand an equation to disprove it.
-
Just because you don't understand the equations doesn't mean they're "garbage equations". Maybe do a bit of research then come back?
Just going to ignore the proof I see.
I don't see any proof of anything. Care to elaborate on how you came to this conclusion about dark energy? Are you a physicist? Have you done the math? Do you even understand the frankly elementary formulas displayed in the UA wiki page?
Just because you say "Dark energy isn't powerful enough to push the Earth" doesn't make it so. You need supporting evidence. Please come back when you've done the math.
And yes, you need to understand an equation to disprove it.
Sure, check out this site, someone here gave it to me, look at the last sentence.
http://wiki.tfes.org/UA#Why_doesn.27t_the_Earth.27s_velocity_reach_the_speed_of_light.3F (http://wiki.tfes.org/UA#Why_doesn.27t_the_Earth.27s_velocity_reach_the_speed_of_light.3F)
Let me quote it for you.
As you can see, it is impossible for dark energy to accelerate the Earth past the speed of light.
I guess maybe you should check your FAQ as well? Maybe do a little research?
See how now my proof does disprove the theory without having to wade through a bullshit equation?
-
There's still no proof or evidence of anything in your posts. You're making assumptions and statements. Congrats.
Dark energy (also known as aether, or aetheric wind) is powerful enough to accelerate the Earth upward. However, it is not powerful enough to reach the speed of light. What is so hard to understand here? It is impossible for dark energy to reach the speed of light. It is possible for dark energy to accelerate the Earth upward. I don't know how to dumb it down further than that.
But it seems like you know something we don't know...
Are you privy to the full understanding of the workings of dark energy? If so, please enlighten us. Please explain exactly how dark energy works, what it's composed of, and how it interacts with space/time.
Thank you.
-
There's still no proof or evidence of anything in your posts. You're making assumptions and statements. Congrats.
Dark energy (also known as aether, or aetheric wind) is powerful enough to accelerate the Earth upward. However, it is not powerful enough to reach the speed of light. What is so hard to understand here? It is impossible for dark energy to reach the speed of light. It is possible for dark energy to accelerate the Earth upward. I don't know how to dumb it down further than that.
But it seems like you know something we don't know...
Are you privy to the full understanding of the workings of dark energy? If so, please enlighten us. Please explain exactly how dark energy works, what it's composed of, and how it interacts with space/time.
Thank you.
I see your debate style. Got it.
Ok instead of giving ammo for you to use to skirt what I say and repeat your points, I'll jump straight to the meat.
To maintain 1 gravity, the earth under UA must constantly accelerate at an ever increasing rate.
To maintain that acceleration the earth must constantly be going faster
speed of light is a constant, a hard wall.
Faster means it must eventually reach the speed of light.
Since we both agree that going the speed of light is impossible, then the earth must then slow down. Its acceleration must decrease to zero and it will hit a constant speed.
Gravity effect, goes poof.
Did I miss something here?
-
You did miss something. Special relativity.
According to the Special theory of Relativity, the Earth can accelerate forever without reaching or passing the speed of light. Relative to Earth observers, the Earth's acceleration will always be 1g. Relative to an inertial observer outside of the flatmosphere: the Earth's acceleration decreases as its velocity approaches c (speed of light). It all depends on our frame of reference to measure and explain the Earth's motion. Thus, despite what most people think, there is no absolute velocity of the Earth.
If you're going to argue against this then you're arguing against Albert Einstein himself.
-
To maintain 1 gravity, the earth under UA must constantly accelerate at an ever increasing rate.
No, it would only need to be a constant rate.
-
You did miss something. Special relativity.
According to the Special theory of Relativity, the Earth can accelerate forever without reaching or passing the speed of light. Relative to Earth observers, the Earth's acceleration will always be 1g. Relative to an inertial observer outside of the flatmosphere: the Earth's acceleration decreases as the its velocity approaches c (speed of light). It all depends on our frame of reference to measure and explain the Earth's motion. Thus, despite what most people think, there is no absolute velocity of the Earth.
If you're going to argue against this then you're arguing against Albert Einstein himself.
That works until you take everything about approaching the speed of light into account. If we are all on one side of this disc, and approaching the speed of light, we would see every star as blue shifted, eventually just fading to black. However, there is an even scattering of blue and red shifted celestial objects through out the sky.
The relevant formula is:
cos(Theta) + (V/c)
Cos(Theta') = ---------------------
1 + (V/c)cos(Theta)
Where V is the velocity of the spaceship, Theta is the angle between the star and the direction of travel when the spacecraft is at rest, and Theta is the same angle measured when the spacecraft is in motion.
What happens is that as you look in the direction of travel, the star images shift to smaller angles, Theta, in the direction of travel. At 75 percent the speed of light, the stars that are 90 degrees from the direction of motion have now shifted to a position 41 degrees from the direction of motion in the sky. At even higher speeds, all of the stars in the forward hemisphere will shift to positions within a degree or less of the direction of travel. At ultra-relativistic speeds, all the stars will merge together into one 'star-like' object located directly ahead of you. Because of the Doppler effect, the light will become increasingly blue-shifted and the 'star' will appear blindingly white. Because the dominant source of radiation in the universe is in the cosmic background radiation, it is this blue-shifted light that will dominate what you see over the light from individual stars.
Traveling at a constant 1 gravity of acceleration means we would reach near light speed in about 12 years. So we can go ahead and assume that the earth is now traveling at 99.999999999999999999999999998...% of the speed of light by now.
What is seen does not match what special relativity predicts will happen.
And youre right jroa. Howdy by the way!
-
The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. Therefore, they are moving upward with the Earth. This explains why they do not 'blue shift', as you say. And yes, the stars are much smaller than you believe.
-
The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. Therefore, they are moving upward with the Earth. This explains why they do not 'blue shift', as you say. And yes, the stars are much smaller than you believe.
So over a hundred billion stars, each with a few planets each we think now, so a few hundred billion planets, including the hundreds of billions of observable galaxies, each with their own hundred billion stars and hundreds of billions of planets and the galactic filaments those things comprise? What is forcing this much mass to stick to such a tiny disk?
Hell, even if the stars are microscopic the mass of the stars all orbiting around us for no reason would be staggering.
-
The mass of the stars is irrelevant. The Earth is not effected by gravity, so it's really of no consequence.
Here's a rough diagram of how it all works..
(http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/hu/movies/neigh.gif)
-
Then whats making them circle earth?
hmm... ok lets put it this way.
How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?
You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?
You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?
-
Then whats making them circle earth?
hmm... ok lets put it this way.
How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?
You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?
You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?
As a regular critic of FET, I have to admit that the UA could pass muster when looking at SR and the apparent velocity of the Earth. But it fails in two major ways: 1) GR requires that the earth be effected by gravity since it has ordinary mass, and 2) SR requires that the UA have provided more than a centillion joules to have accelerated the earth to date, a preposterous amount!
-
Then whats making them circle earth?
hmm... ok lets put it this way.
How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?
You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?
You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?
All great questions. I'll have to get back to you later with a response.
-
Then whats making them circle earth?
hmm... ok lets put it this way.
How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?
You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?
You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?
As a regular critic of FET, I have to admit that the UA could pass muster when looking at SR and the apparent velocity of the Earth. But it fails in two major ways: 1) GR requires that the earth be effected by gravity since it has ordinary mass, and 2) SR requires that the UA have provided more than a centillion joules to have accelerated the earth to date, a preposterous amount!
Thats just the earth, according to Vaux you also have to add in the mass of a few hundred trillion stars and their planets.
-
Then whats making them circle earth?
hmm... ok lets put it this way.
How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?
You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?
You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?
All great questions. I'll have to get back to you later with a response.
Fair enough Vaux
-
The mass of the stars is irrelevant. The Earth is not effected by gravity, so it's really of no consequence.
??? I thought that celestial gravitation was responsible for the tides and for measured variations in g.
-
Then whats making them circle earth?
hmm... ok lets put it this way.
How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?
You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?
You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?
Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.
-
Then whats making them circle earth?
hmm... ok lets put it this way.
How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?
You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?
You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?
Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.
So what is your point? If you wish to impugn GR then please tell us how the GR's Equivalence Principle still allows FET to explain common "gravity".
-
So what is your point? If you wish to impugn GR then please tell us how the GR's Equivalence Principle still allows FET to explain common "gravity".
"If you disagree with the Bible, how can you believe that killing is wrong? After all, the Bible says that, and you disagree with the Bible. Duh."
Gulliver, please.
-
Then whats making them circle earth?
hmm... ok lets put it this way.
How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?
You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?
You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?
Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.
I eagerly await your debunking of every successful test of General Relativity. It should be simple enough for you.
-
So what is your point? If you wish to impugn GR then please tell us how the GR's Equivalence Principle still allows FET to explain common "gravity".
"If you disagree with the Bible, how can you believe that killing is wrong? After all, the Bible says that, and you disagree with the Bible. Duh."
Gulliver, please.
Are you arguing that the proof of the EP stands without the rest of GR? Citation Required.
-
Then whats making them circle earth?
hmm... ok lets put it this way.
How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?
You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?
You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?
Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.
I eagerly await your debunking of every successful test of General Relativity. It should be simple enough for you.
The "tests" of GR do not demonstrate that space bends. Watching light bend around a star only tells us that light bends around a star. It could be due to graviton puller particles, a force, or perhaps subatomic pusher fairies. There is no direct test for the concept of bending space fabric.
-
Then whats making them circle earth?
hmm... ok lets put it this way.
How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?
You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?
You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?
Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.
I eagerly await your debunking of every successful test of General Relativity. It should be simple enough for you.
The "tests" of GR do not demonstrate that space bends. Watching light bend around a star only tells us that light bends around a star. It could be due to graviton puller particles, a force, or perhaps subatomic pusher fairies. There is no direct test for the concept of bending space fabric.
The curvature of space-time is the physical interpretation of the mathematics of GR. Whatever is happening, GR is modelling and predicting it accurately and has not been falsified. It is every bit as verified [sic] as Special Relativity. Light bending around a star is of course not the only prediction of GR that has been verified; care to address those?
-
Are you arguing that the proof of the EP stands without the rest of GR? Citation Required.
No, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the two models are equivalent in this regard because your model strictly requires this to be the case. This is entirely in your court, and that's the conclusion you've reached. I'm merely holding you to account on it.
Gulliver, please.
-
Are you arguing that the proof of the EP stands without the rest of GR? Citation Required.
No, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the two models are equivalent in this regard because your model strictly requires this to be the case. This is entirely in your court, and that's the conclusion you've reached. I'm merely holding you to account on it.
Gulliver, please.
I don't think you're paying attention. Please quote me where I made a conclusion in this matter. RET does not require that the two models are equivalent in this regard. Tom Bishop declared that only SR has been scientifically proven, without citation. I've challenged him to explain his point.
-
Then whats making them circle earth?
hmm... ok lets put it this way.
How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?
You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?
You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?
Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.
I eagerly await your debunking of every successful test of General Relativity. It should be simple enough for you.
The "tests" of GR do not demonstrate that space bends. Watching light bend around a star only tells us that light bends around a star. It could be due to graviton puller particles, a force, or perhaps subatomic pusher fairies. There is no direct test for the concept of bending space fabric.
The curvature of space-time is the physical interpretation of the mathematics of GR. Whatever is happening, GR is modelling and predicting it accurately and has not been falsified. It is every bit as verified [sic] as Special Relativity. Light bending around a star is of course not the only prediction of GR that has been verified; care to address those?
GR has not been verified. The last I checked there was no Grand Unified Theory. In Quantum Mechanics there is the theory of the graviton, which proposes that a subatomic messenger particle is the mechanism behind gravity, which is in direct contradiction to General Relativity which says that gravity is due to the bending of space. The square root attraction in the QM theory precisely the same as what GR predicts.
Watching a ball drop does not tell us why or how it dropped. It is a big deal in physics that the phenomenon of gravity remains unexplained and mysterious.
I don't think you're paying attention. Please quote me where I made a conclusion in this matter. RET does not require that the two models are equivalent in this regard. Tom Bishop declared that only SR has been scientifically proven, without citation. I've challenged him to explain his point.
Frames of reference experiments have put moving frames under controlled conditions to conclude that time works differently within different frames. An experiment that can move is within our capability.
There is no experiment, however, which can test or detect the bending of space. The concept of bending space is untested and assumed.
-
Then whats making them circle earth?
hmm... ok lets put it this way.
How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?
You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?
You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?
Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.
I eagerly await your debunking of every successful test of General Relativity. It should be simple enough for you.
The "tests" of GR do not demonstrate that space bends. Watching light bend around a star only tells us that light bends around a star. It could be due to graviton puller particles, a force, or perhaps subatomic pusher fairies. There is no direct test for the concept of bending space fabric.
The curvature of space-time is the physical interpretation of the mathematics of GR. Whatever is happening, GR is modelling and predicting it accurately and has not been falsified. It is every bit as verified [sic] as Special Relativity. Light bending around a star is of course not the only prediction of GR that has been verified; care to address those?
GR has not been verified.
No scientific theory is verified only falsified. So far GR has passed every test.
The last I checked there was no Grand Unified Theory.
That is completely irrelevant. A GUT says nothing of the success of GR except on the quantum scale.
In Quantum Mechanics there is the theory of the graviton, which proposes that a subatomic messenger particle is the mechanism behind gravity, which is in direct contradiction to General Relativity which says that gravity is due to the bending of space.[ /quote]
Please demonstrate that the bending of school ace does not create a quantum field. That there is evidence for gravitational radiation would seem to indicate that it does but no one knows for sure. Again, this says nothing about the success of GR on its own merits.
The square root attraction in the QM theory precisely the same as what GR predicts.
So two theories are converging on the same answer? That sounds promising for both!
Watching a ball drop does not tell us why or how it dropped. It is a big deal in physics that the phenomenon of gravity remains unexplained and mysterious.
GR tells us exactly how objects attract. I know of no scientific theory that answers "why" something happens.
I don't think you're paying attention. Please quote me where I made a conclusion in this matter. RET does not require that the two models are equivalent in this regard. Tom Bishop declared that only SR has been scientifically proven, without citation. I've challenged him to explain his point.
Frames of reference experiments have put moving frames under controlled conditions to conclude that time works differently within different frames. An experiment that can move is within our capability.
There is no experiment, however, which can test or detect the bending of space. The concept of bending space is untested and assumed.
This is not true. Please research experimental evidence for relativistic frame-dragging. Also the study of the CMB a has allowed for measurement of the curvature of space.
-
Then whats making them circle earth?
hmm... ok lets put it this way.
How is hundreds of trillions of stars and possibly quadrillions of planets all circling the earth, locked together traveling at nigh on the speed of light to create a gravitational effect on earth, simpler than the earth being round and gravity existing?
You use special relativity to validate UA, so Einstein could come up with that and be right, but General Relativity isn't good enough?
You asked earlier if I would go against Albert Einstein on special relativity, and you're right, I wouldn't. But why would you go against him on General Relativity? The reasoning seems the same. Why is one good and the other not?
Only Special Relativity has been scientifically demonstrated.
General Relativity is just as scientifically demonstrated as Special. I am not understanding your point. It sounds more like since you don't have a neat-o alternative theory for why time dilates at high speed but do have a "theory" about gravity, then one is ironclad and the other has not been "scientifically demonstrated"
-
There is NO evidence that space "bends". What we have are accelerators which measure acceleration. There is no device which can detect that space is bending.
There IS evidence that moving frames cause time dilation. Ie. the experiment where the put a clock on a jet and a clock on the ground. This is direct evidence that time dilates.
-
There is NO evidence that space "bends".
Citation needed.
-
There is NO evidence that space "bends". What we have are accelerators which measure acceleration. There is no device which can detect that space is bending.
There IS evidence that moving frames cause time dilation. Ie. the experiment where the put a clock on a jet and a clock on the ground. This is direct evidence that time dilates.
There is also direct evidence that space does bend.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe)
http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm (http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm)
Not only was there a device that could directly measure it, but also its called your eye and a telescope and observe the gravitational lensing around dense objects.
-
There is NO evidence that space "bends". What we have are accelerators which measure acceleration. There is no device which can detect that space is bending.
There IS evidence that moving frames cause time dilation. Ie. the experiment where the put a clock on a jet and a clock on the ground. This is direct evidence that time dilates.
There is also direct evidence that space does bend.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe (http://www.theguardian.com/science/2007/apr/15/spaceexploration.universe)
http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm (http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm)
Not only was there a device that could directly measure it, but also its called your eye and a telescope and observe the gravitational lensing around dense objects.
Wrong. Incorrect. Frame dragging is described as follows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging):
Rotational frame-dragging (the Lense–Thirring effect) appears in the general principle of relativity and similar theories in the vicinity of rotating massive objects. Under the Lense–Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is revolving around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move past the massive object faster than light moving against the rotation, as seen by a distant observer.
The clock is moving faster because the clock is experiencing more acceleration, and therefore in a different frame of reference. We saw the same thing in the clock-on-a-jet experiment. It is caused by frames of reference. There is nothing directly telling us that "space is bending". It is telling us that clocks put under acceleration will experience time dilation.
What evidence is there that space is actually bending? There is NONE.
Your second link deals with light bending around stars. But, again, there could be a lot of things pulling light towards stars, not just the bending of space. QM has another explanation for that. Light bending towards stars or a ball moving towards the earth does NOTHING to tell us that space itself is bending.
-
Wrong. Incorrect. Frame dragging is described as follows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging):
Rotational frame-dragging (the Lense–Thirring effect) appears in the general principle of relativity and similar theories in the vicinity of rotating massive objects. Under the Lense–Thirring effect, the frame of reference in which a clock ticks the fastest is one which is revolving around the object as viewed by a distant observer. This also means that light traveling in the direction of rotation of the object will move past the massive object faster than light moving against the rotation, as seen by a distant observer.
The clock is moving faster because the clock is experiencing more acceleration, and therefore in a different frame of reference. We saw the same thing in the clock-on-a-jet experiment. It is caused by frames of reference. There is nothing directly telling us that "space is bending". It is telling us that clocks put under acceleration will experience time dilation.
What evidence is there that space is actually bending? There is NONE.
All observations point to space bending to a high degree of confidence. As has been pointed out in this thread, and you are no doubt willfully ignoring, science is not in the practice of proving things. GR has been tested numerous times and has held up under scrutiny, so it is the preferred theory and the mathematical construction of GR tells us that spacetime warping is what causes the phenomena we see. It is actually not as important as you are making it out to be though. You are claiming that GR has not been successfully tested because we have not directly observed space bending, but the test of GR is if it makes accurate predictions about how the metric tensor interacts with the universe. It has successfully stood up to a multitude of experimental tests. Can you even provide a formulation of the UA which could be tested in any way?
Your second link deals with light bending around stars. But, again, there could be a lot of things pulling light towards stars, not just the bending of space. QM has another explanation for that.
Is the QM explanation mutually exclusive to GR? I was not aware it was. Why do you want to throw out an extremely accurate description?
Light bending towards stars or a ball moving towards the earth does NOTHING to tell us that space itself is bending.
Well feel free to propose your own solution. Until such time, we have an extremely successful mathematical model for how mass/energy/momentum affect the relative motions, and no particularly convincing reason from you to why we should ignore it.
-
All observations point to space bending to a high degree of confidence. As has been pointed out in this thread, and you are no doubt willfully ignoring, science is not in the practice of proving things.
Actually, it is.
GR has been tested numerous times and has held up under scrutiny, so it is the preferred theory and the mathematical construction of GR tells us that spacetime warping is what causes the phenomena we see. It is actually not as important as you are making it out to be though. You are claiming that GR has not been successfully tested because we have not directly observed space bending, but the test of GR is if it makes accurate predictions about how the metric tensor interacts with the universe. It has successfully stood up to a multitude of experimental tests. Can you even provide a formulation of the UA which could be tested in any way?
GR has not been tested. I could publish the same square root attraction equations and say that things attract because there is a special negative pressure property to the background universe where mass is pushed and clumped together by fluid-space. The more mass, the more powerful the universe clumps it together as it seeks to create the most empty space possible. My theory is "tested" because the equations work.
Not! This special property to the universe has not been detected. That the equations work is irrelevant.
Is the QM explanation mutually exclusive to GR? I was not aware it was. Why do you want to throw out an extremely accurate description?
Yes. It is mutually exclusive. The mechanism of gravity under QM is entirely different than the mechanism of gravity under GR.
Well feel free to propose your own solution. Until such time, we have an extremely successful mathematical model for how mass/energy/momentum affect the relative motions, and no particularly convincing reason from you to why we should ignore it.
A mathematical model can be made for magnets, but it says nothing on the cause for the mechanism of magnetism, or whether all bodies in the universe are magnetic. The concept of the bending of space is entirely fabric-ated!
-
All observations point to space bending to a high degree of confidence. As has been pointed out in this thread, and you are no doubt willfully ignoring, science is not in the practice of proving things.
Actually, it is.
Actually, it isn't.
GR has been tested numerous times and has held up under scrutiny, so it is the preferred theory and the mathematical construction of GR tells us that spacetime warping is what causes the phenomena we see. It is actually not as important as you are making it out to be though. You are claiming that GR has not been successfully tested because we have not directly observed space bending, but the test of GR is if it makes accurate predictions about how the metric tensor interacts with the universe. It has successfully stood up to a multitude of experimental tests. Can you even provide a formulation of the UA which could be tested in any way?
GR has not been tested.
Yes it had.
I could publish the same square root attraction equations and say that things attract because there is a special negative pressure property to the background universe where mass is pushed and clumped together by fluid-space. The more mass, the more powerful the universe clumps it together as it seeks to create the most empty space possible. My theory is "tested" because the equations work.
And you would display a profound ignorance of mathematics. The equations of GR deal with energy/mass/momentum and how they affect a 4-dimensional co-ordinate system. The math shows that the metric tensor warps the 4-d coordinate system is specific and predictable ways.
Not! This special property to the universe has not been detected. That the equations work is irrelevant.
It is actually the most relevant part of GR.
Is the QM explanation mutually exclusive to GR? I was not aware it was. Why do you want to throw out an extremely accurate description?
Yes. It is mutually exclusive. The mechanism of gravity under QM is entirely different than the mechanism of gravity under GR.
Please demonstrate for us that the warping of spacetime does not generate a quantum field then. There is already evidence for gravitational radiation which contradicts your position.
Well feel free to propose your own solution. Until such time, we have an extremely successful mathematical model for how mass/energy/momentum affect the relative motions, and no particularly convincing reason from you to why we should ignore it.
A mathematical model can be made for magnets, but it says nothing on the cause for the mechanism of magnetism, or whether all bodies in the universe are magnetic. The concept of the bending of space is entirely fabricated!
Did you know a virtual photon has never been directly observed either? We have never directly observed the force carrier that the theory requires. Is this as big a problem for you as it is for GR?
-
All observations point to space bending to a high degree of confidence. As has been pointed out in this thread, and you are no doubt willfully ignoring, science is not in the practice of proving things.
Actually, it is.
Steps of the Scientific Method
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion
Wheres the prove part? I missed it.
-
And you would display a profound ignorance of mathematics. The equations of GR deal with energy/mass/momentum and how they affect a 4-dimensional co-ordinate system. The math shows that the metric tensor warps the 4-d coordinate system is specific and predictable ways.
Time, the "fourth dimension", is dilated because bodies near a body which is attracting it are being put under an acceleration, and therefore in a different frame of reference than bodies outside of that frame. The phenomenon says nothing about the bending of space. That someone can predict that time will be dilated when a body accelerates bodies towards it is MEANINGLESS as evidence towards bending space.
Please demonstrate for us that the warping of spacetime does not generate a quantum field then. There is already evidence for gravitational radiation which contradicts your position.
There is NO Grand Unified Theory which marries relativity to quantum mechanics.
Did you know a virtual photon has never been directly observed either? We have never directly observed the force carrier that the theory requires. Is this as big a problem for you as it is for GR?
Yes, there is no evidence for that stuff, either.
-
All observations point to space bending to a high degree of confidence. As has been pointed out in this thread, and you are no doubt willfully ignoring, science is not in the practice of proving things.
Actually, it is.
Steps of the Scientific Method
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion
Wheres the prove part? I missed it.
Conclusion
Also, please show me where an experiment has shown that space is bending. As far as I know, there is not a device which can detect such a thing.
Surely Albert Einstein, of all people, would have put his hypothesis through the esteemed Scientific Method before publishing his work.
-
All observations point to space bending to a high degree of confidence. As has been pointed out in this thread, and you are no doubt willfully ignoring, science is not in the practice of proving things.
Actually, it is.
Steps of the Scientific Method
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion
Wheres the prove part? I missed it.
Conclusion
Also, please show me where an experiment has shown that space is bending. As far as I know, there is not a device which can detect such a thing.
Surely Albert Einstein, of all people, would have put his hypothesis through the esteemed Scientific Method before publishing his work.
con·clu·sion
kənˈklo͞oZHən/Submit
noun
1. the end or finish of an event or process.
"the conclusion of World War Two"
2. a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.
prove
pro͞ov/Submit
verb
1. demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
One is to say, this is fact, this is the truth. The other is to reach a decision on something. One is concrete, one is open for further testing.
Semantics is a poor debate technique Tom.
I'll give you multiple experiments showing evidence of GR being correct.
1. Perihelion precession of Mercury
2. Deflection of light by the Sun
3. Gravitational redshift of light
4. Gravitational lensing
5. Light travel time delay testing
6. The equivalence principle
7. Frame-dragging tests
So on, so forth.
-
con·clu·sion
kənˈklo͞oZHən/Submit
noun
1. the end or finish of an event or process.
"the conclusion of World War Two"
2. a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.
prove
pro͞ov/Submit
verb
1. demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
One is to say, this is fact, this is the truth. The other is to reach a decision on something. One is concrete, one is open for further testing.
There is no such thing as absolute truth. Everything is open to further testing. Proof is not absolute truth. Aristotile's self described "three proofs that the earth is a globe" are open to interpretation, and are not absolute.
Proof is a conclusion based on evidence, which is exactly what the Scientific Method seeks to create. Once you've concluded something based on evidence, you have created a proof.
See: Every single instance of "proof" used in the history of science.
I'll give you multiple experiments showing evidence of GR being correct.
1. Perihelion precession of Mercury
2. Deflection of light by the Sun
3. Gravitational redshift of light
4. Gravitational lensing
5. Light travel time delay testing
6. The equivalence principle
7. Frame-dragging tests
So on, so forth.
None of that is proof that space has a fabric, which is "bending". Stop talking nonsense. Why don't you THINK. There are plenty of explanations for those things. Quantum Mechanics perfectly explains those things without needing to "bend space".
-
And you would display a profound ignorance of mathematics. The equations of GR deal with energy/mass/momentum and how they affect a 4-dimensional co-ordinate system. The math shows that the metric tensor warps the 4-d coordinate system is specific and predictable ways.
Time, the "fourth dimension", is dilated because bodies near a body which is attracting it are being put under an acceleration, and therefore in a different frame of reference than bodies outside of that frame. The phenomenon says nothing about the bending of space. That someone can predict that time will be dilated when a body accelerates bodies towards it is MEANINGLESS as evidence towards bending space.
That is not the only phenomenon predicted by GR.
Please demonstrate for us that the warping of spacetime does not generate a quantum field then. There is already evidence for gravitational radiation which contradicts your position.
There is NO Grand Unified Theory which marries relativity to quantum mechanics.
So then why are you making assumptions about what such a theory would predict?
Did you know a virtual photon has never been directly observed either? We have never directly observed the force carrier that the theory requires. Is this as big a problem for you as it is for GR?
Yes, there is no evidence for that stuff, either.
So you reject the existence of electro-magnetism naturally.
-
con·clu·sion
kənˈklo͞oZHən/Submit
noun
1. the end or finish of an event or process.
"the conclusion of World War Two"
2. a judgment or decision reached by reasoning.
prove
pro͞ov/Submit
verb
1. demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
One is to say, this is fact, this is the truth. The other is to reach a decision on something. One is concrete, one is open for further testing.
There is no such thing as absolute truth. Everything is open to further testing. Proof is not absolute truth. Aristotile's self described "three proofs that the earth is a globe" are open to interpretation, and are not absolute.
Proof is a conclusion based on evidence, which is exactly what the Scientific Method seeks to create. Once you've concluded something based on evidence, you have created a proof.
See: Every single instance of "proof" used in the history of science.
I'll give you multiple experiments showing evidence of GR being correct.
1. Perihelion precession of Mercury
2. Deflection of light by the Sun
3. Gravitational redshift of light
4. Gravitational lensing
5. Light travel time delay testing
6. The equivalence principle
7. Frame-dragging tests
So on, so forth.
None of that is proof that space has a fabric, which is "bending". Stop talking nonsense. Why don't you THINK. There are plenty of explanations for those things. Quantum Mechanics perfectly explains those things without needing to "bend space".
Stop pretending to understand QM. There is famously no theory of quantum gravity. It is the most famous problem of modern physics.
I am wondering why you are now championing QM anyway. I recall you holding the position that there are no "magic puller particles". What is your actual position?
-
There is no such thing as absolute truth. Everything is open to further testing. Proof is not absolute truth. Aristotile's self described "three proofs that the earth is a globe" are open to interpretation, and are not absolute.
Proof is a conclusion based on evidence, which is exactly what the Scientific Method seeks to create. Once you've concluded something based on evidence, you have created a proof.
See: Every single instance of "proof" used in the history of science.
You flip flop mid statement here, either there is such a thing as a proof or there is not. Which is it? I think you are confusing a mathematical proof with a scientific conclusion.
None of that is proof that space has a fabric, which is "bending". Stop talking nonsense. Why don't you THINK. There are plenty of explanations for those things. Quantum Mechanics perfectly explains those things without needing to "bend space".
How does Quantum Mechanics help you with a flat earth theory?
-
I'm sorry, I moved the goalposts without responding to you.
You asked for experiments that demonstrate that space time bends, I showed them. You are now moving the goalposts by asking for things that prove that space time bends, which we have said multiple times is not the point of science. Make observations, experiment and conclude, always open for further testing.
There are no scientific proofs.
-
Also, please show me where an experiment has shown that space is bending. As far as I know, there is not a device which can detect such a thing.
Tom, are you saying that gravitational lensing has not been observed or that it is not consistent with warped space-time?
-
So then why are you making assumptions about what such a theory would predict?
I said nothing of the GUT except that it does not exist.
Did you know a virtual photon has never been directly observed either? We have never directly observed the force carrier that the theory requires. Is this as big a problem for you as it is for GR?
Yes, there is no evidence for that stuff, either.
So you reject the existence of electro-magnetism naturally.
The existence of electo-magnetism is self apparent. But there is no evidence of magnetic photons. The mechanism of magnetism is a mystery as well.
I'm sorry, I moved the goalposts without responding to you.
You asked for experiments that demonstrate that space time bends, I showed them. You are now moving the goalposts by asking for things that prove that space time bends, which we have said multiple times is not the point of science. Make observations, experiment and conclude, always open for further testing.
There are no scientific proofs.
Sure there are. Proof is an exercise in logic. It is arriving at a logical conclusion based on available evidence.
Unfortunately, in this case, the available evidence presented shows that something is attracting things to bodies, not that space is bending.
Also, please show me where an experiment has shown that space is bending. As far as I know, there is not a device which can detect such a thing.
Tom, are you saying that gravitational lensing has not been observed or that it is not consistent with warped space-time?
Gravitational Lensing has been observed. That some square root attraction math can be made and slapped with a label of "bending of space" is irrelevant and not proof. The label can also be "Graviton puller particles" or "Subatomic pusher fairies" and be equally valid.
-
Gravitational Lensing has been observed.
Okay, that's a start.
That some square root attraction math can be made and slapped with a label of "bending of space" is irrelevant and not proof.
First of all, GR is hardly "some square root attraction math". Secondly, GR predicted gravitational lensing before it was observed. If by "square root math" you're referring to Newton's gravity formula, then, to the best of my knowledge, no such prediction has ever been made using Newtonian's gravity formulas.
The label can also be "Graviton puller particles" or "Subatomic pusher fairies" and be equally valid.
True. No one ever said that warped space-time was the only explanation for gravitational lensing, but it has been shown to be a very good and reliable one.
-
So then why are you making assumptions about what such a theory would predict?
I said nothing of the GUT except that it does not exist.
You assume that it is going to marry GR and QM
Did you know a virtual photon has never been directly observed either? We have never directly observed the force carrier that the theory requires. Is this as big a problem for you as it is for GR?
Yes, there is no evidence for that stuff, either.
So you reject the existence of electro-magnetism naturally.
The existence of electo-magnetism is self apparent.[/quote]
The existence for gravity is also self-apparent.
But there is no evidence of magnetic photons. The mechanism of magnetism is a mystery as well.
You still have no understanding of what the magnetic photon is. It is like you read the title of an article and assumed everything else. It also seems like you might not grasp electro-magnetism.
Electricity and magnetism are the same force, they do not require a separate gauge boson. The magnetic photon was postulated as a requirement for a hypothetical magnetic phenomenon, magnetic monopoles. The magnetic monopole has never been observed, and if it is, they will look for the magnetic photon. Really it is irrelevant to the mechanism of a magnetic field. You should let it go now, it has been too long.
-
Gravitational Lensing has been observed.
Okay, that's a start.
That some square root attraction math can be made and slapped with a label of "bending of space" is irrelevant and not proof.
First of all, GR is hardly "some square root attraction math". Secondly, GR predicted gravitational lensing before it was observed. If by "square root math" you're referring to Newton's gravity formula, then, to the best of my knowledge, no such prediction has ever been made using Newtonian's gravity formulas.
The label can also be "Graviton puller particles" or "Subatomic pusher fairies" and be equally valid.
True. No one ever said that warped space-time was the only explanation for gravitational lensing, but it has been shown to be a very good and reliable one.
Right. There are a lot of labels can be slapped over that math.
You assume that it is going to marry GR and QM
What do you think the Grand Unified Theory is trying to unify?
The existence for gravity is also self-apparent.
Gravity is a word which historically refers to the theory. Gravitation is the physical action of attracting bodies.
But there is no evidence of magnetic photons. The mechanism of magnetism is a mystery as well.
You still have no understanding of what the magnetic photon is. It is like you read the title of an article and assumed everything else. It also seems like you might not grasp electro-magnetism.
Electricity and magnetism are the same force, they do not require a separate gauge boson. The magnetic photon was postulated as a requirement for a hypothetical magnetic phenomenon, magnetic monopoles. The magnetic monopole has never been observed, and if it is, they will look for the magnetic photon. Really it is irrelevant to the mechanism of a magnetic field. You should let it go now, it has been too long.
There are plenty of references indicating that the hypothetical mechanism of Magnitism is via special photons (https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=414). The main thing to take away from this page and others is that they don't really know what causes it.
-
Right. There are a lot of labels can be slapped over that math.
So this is just about semantics for you? You agree that the GR math is correct, it accurately predicts the effects? Its just that the word gravity killed your wife and kids and you refuse to rest till all use of it is eliminated from the lexicon?
I personally am perfectly fine with that. Though the math also says that a flat earth traveling at the speed of light with the entire cosmos attached to it is impossible. So I have to assume that you again feel you want to cherry pick special relativity and dump general relativity, even though one progressed out of the other. Which I feel is strange.
-
They got the math generally correct enough to match observations (although not really, gravity fails in a lot of things like explaining the motion of the galaxies, and needs the universe to be filled with dark matter/energy to work). The main problem is that of scale. The stars and celestial bodies in RET are much bigger than the ones in FET, which shrinks the power of 'gravity', and somewhat changes its nature and implications, under the FET model.
Also, it is possible to accelerate indefinitely in space. This concept is not even cherry picking Special Relativity Theory. The relativity of motion was spoken about in Ancient Greece by Aristotle and others after him. It's old! The only new thing Einstein brought into his rip-off work was lumping it together with the relativity of time.
For a body traveling at 9.8 meters per second per second, from one second to the next it has increased its acceleration by 9.8 meters and has traveled that distance. It does not know about, or is affected by, or cares about, the previous increases in acceleration. In its reference frame it is static from one moment to the next. At some observation point, perhaps, 9.8 m/s/s would be appear to approach (but never quite appear to reach) the speed of light. The keyword is: appear.
Speed is relative. It is an outside observer phenomenon. An asteroid in space can be traveling 4 miles an hour or 4000 miles an hour depending on the speed of who is looking at it, relative to that asteroid.
-
You assume that it is going to marry GR and QM
What do you think the Grand Unified Theory is trying to unify?
I know that that is the intention. Whether or not it is possible is another matter.
The existence for gravity is also self-apparent.
Gravity is a word which historically refers to the theory. Gravitation is the physical action of attracting bodies.
Semantics aside, I am glad we agree.
But there is no evidence of magnetic photons. The mechanism of magnetism is a mystery as well.
You still have no understanding of what the magnetic photon is. It is like you read the title of an article and assumed everything else. It also seems like you might not grasp electro-magnetism.
Electricity and magnetism are the same force, they do not require a separate gauge boson. The magnetic photon was postulated as a requirement for a hypothetical magnetic phenomenon, magnetic monopoles. The magnetic monopole has never been observed, and if it is, they will look for the magnetic photon. Really it is irrelevant to the mechanism of a magnetic field. You should let it go now, it has been too long.
There are plenty of references indicating that the hypothetical mechanism of Magnitism is via special photons (https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=414). The main thing to take away from this page and others is that they don't really know what causes it.
From the wikipedia page on magnetic photons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_photon):
In physics, a magnetic photon is a hypothetical particle. It is a mixture of even and odd C-parity states and, unlike the normal photon, does not couple to leptons. It is predicted by certain extensions of electromagnetism to include magnetic monopoles. There is no experimental evidence for the existence of this particle, and several versions [1] have been ruled out by negative experiments.[2]
The magnetic photon was predicted in 1966 by Nobel laureate Abdus Salam.[3]
I have never seen anything indicating that the photon is not the mechanism of magnetism. I cannot navigate to your link, but I would be interested in seeing what it has to offer. Can you quote any of it?
-
They got the math generally correct enough to match observations (although not really, gravity fails in a lot of things like explaining the motion of the galaxies, and needs the universe to be filled with dark matter/energy to work).
This may be a problem with the theory or it may be a hitherto unobserved phenomenon. Considering the success of the theory to this point, it seems efficient to consider the latter first.
-
They got the math generally correct enough to match observations (although not really, gravity fails in a lot of things like explaining the motion of the galaxies, and needs the universe to be filled with dark matter/energy to work). The main problem is that of scale. The stars and celestial bodies in RET are much bigger than the ones in FET, which shrinks the power of 'gravity', and somewhat changes its nature and implications, under the FET model.
Also, it is possible to accelerate indefinitely in space. This concept is not even cherry picking Special Relativity Theory. The relativity of motion was spoken about in Ancient Greece by Aristotle and others after him. It's old! The only new thing Einstein brought into his rip-off work was lumping it together with the relativity of time.
For a body traveling at 9.8 meters per second per second, from one second to the next it has increased its acceleration by 9.8 meters and has traveled that distance. It does not know about, or is affected by, or cares about, the previous increases in acceleration. In its reference frame it is static from one moment to the next. At some observation point, perhaps, 9.8 m/s/s would be appear to approach (but never quite appear to reach) the speed of light. The keyword is: appear.
Speed is relative. It is an outside observer phenomenon. An asteroid in space can be traveling 4 miles an hour or 4000 miles an hour depending on the speed of who is looking at it, relative to that asteroid.
No I mean cherry picking GR, the effects described are accepted, but one of the things it shows is that a large shape that is being held together by whatever you want to call the effect of gravity will form a sphere, a flat disc goes counter to the model that the math of GR predicts for celestial bodies. Even galaxy's are extremely slowly rotating secretion discs much like the model for an early solar system. what mater doesn't fall into the central object (the super massive black hole) clumps together and slowly forms bodies. In the galaxies case, round stars, in the solar systems case, round planets.
I know that if you keep extending the the realm of belief you can make UA work, but to say that the entire cosmos, from the stars and planets to the galaxies to the universal filament is all rotating the tiny ass speck of the earths flat disc, with all of that mass for no reason at all accelerating in one direction at nearly the speed of light just to try and come up with a counter theory to 'all mass attracts other mass' really flies in the face of Occam's Razor; by several orders of magnitude.
-
You assume that it is going to marry GR and QM
What do you think the Grand Unified Theory is trying to unify?
Well, Princeton University (http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Grand_unification_theory.html) seems to think that a GUT is trying to unify the Strong, Weak and EM forces. What do you think a GUT is supposed to unify?
They got the math generally correct enough to match observations (although not really, gravity fails in a lot of things like explaining the motion of the galaxies, and needs the universe to be filled with dark matter/energy to work).
Why do you assume that the motions of galaxies is a failure of our understanding of the nature of gravity and not a failure of our understanding of the nature of galaxies?
-
For a body traveling at 9.8 meters per second per second, from one second to the next it has increased its acceleration by 9.8 meters and has traveled that distance. It does not know about, or is affected by, or cares about, the previous increases in acceleration. In its reference frame it is static from one moment to the next. At some observation point, perhaps, 9.8 m/s/s would be appear to approach (but never quite appear to reach) the speed of light. The keyword is: appear.
Not even close. Please review and repost. For example, a body doesn't travel at 9.8 m/s/s. iFoRs are not static for objects under acceleration. You feel the acceleration when you turn your car sharply at say 40 MPH.
Also since you emphasized the word "appear", I have to ask you if the earth "appears" flat to you.
-
The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. Therefore, they are moving upward with the Earth. This explains why they do not 'blue shift', as you say. And yes, the stars are much smaller than you believe.
So over a hundred billion stars, each with a few planets each we think now, so a few hundred billion planets, including the hundreds of billions of observable galaxies, each with their own hundred billion stars and hundreds of billions of planets and the galactic filaments those things comprise? What is forcing this much mass to stick to such a tiny disk?
Hell, even if the stars are microscopic the mass of the stars all orbiting around us for no reason would be staggering.
No extra solar planets have been discovered. Astronomers assume a lot about the slight wobbles and brightness/color variations in the stars.
-
The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. Therefore, they are moving upward with the Earth. This explains why they do not 'blue shift', as you say. And yes, the stars are much smaller than you believe.
So over a hundred billion stars, each with a few planets each we think now, so a few hundred billion planets, including the hundreds of billions of observable galaxies, each with their own hundred billion stars and hundreds of billions of planets and the galactic filaments those things comprise? What is forcing this much mass to stick to such a tiny disk?
Hell, even if the stars are microscopic the mass of the stars all orbiting around us for no reason would be staggering.
No extra solar planets have been discovered. Astronomers assume a lot about the slight wobbles and brightness/color variations in the stars.
Tom, we've explained this to you repeatedly. It's not just the distant stars' color variations, but rather their spectral shifts. See, again: “Cosmos,” episode 8, “Sisters of the Sun,”
-
The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. Therefore, they are moving upward with the Earth. This explains why they do not 'blue shift', as you say. And yes, the stars are much smaller than you believe.
So over a hundred billion stars, each with a few planets each we think now, so a few hundred billion planets, including the hundreds of billions of observable galaxies, each with their own hundred billion stars and hundreds of billions of planets and the galactic filaments those things comprise? What is forcing this much mass to stick to such a tiny disk?
Hell, even if the stars are microscopic the mass of the stars all orbiting around us for no reason would be staggering.
No extra solar planets have been discovered. Astronomers assume a lot about the slight wobbles and brightness/color variations in the stars.
Tom, we've explained this to you repeatedly. It's not just the distant stars' color variations, but rather their spectral shifts. See, again: “Cosmos,” episode 8, “Sisters of the Sun,”
Color change is a shift in spectrum.
-
They got the math generally correct enough to match observations (although not really, gravity fails in a lot of things like explaining the motion of the galaxies, and needs the universe to be filled with dark matter/energy to work). The main problem is that of scale. The stars and celestial bodies in RET are much bigger than the ones in FET, which shrinks the power of 'gravity', and somewhat changes its nature and implications, under the FET model.
Also, it is possible to accelerate indefinitely in space. This concept is not even cherry picking Special Relativity Theory. The relativity of motion was spoken about in Ancient Greece by Aristotle and others after him. It's old! The only new thing Einstein brought into his rip-off work was lumping it together with the relativity of time.
For a body traveling at 9.8 meters per second per second, from one second to the next it has increased its acceleration by 9.8 meters and has traveled that distance. It does not know about, or is affected by, or cares about, the previous increases in acceleration. In its reference frame it is static from one moment to the next. At some observation point, perhaps, 9.8 m/s/s would be appear to approach (but never quite appear to reach) the speed of light. The keyword is: appear.
Speed is relative. It is an outside observer phenomenon. An asteroid in space can be traveling 4 miles an hour or 4000 miles an hour depending on the speed of who is looking at it, relative to that asteroid.
No I mean cherry picking GR, the effects described are accepted, but one of the things it shows is that a large shape that is being held together by whatever you want to call the effect of gravity will form a sphere, a flat disc goes counter to the model that the math of GR predicts for celestial bodies. Even galaxy's are extremely slowly rotating secretion discs much like the model for an early solar system. what mater doesn't fall into the central object (the super massive black hole) clumps together and slowly forms bodies. In the galaxies case, round stars, in the solar systems case, round planets.
I know that if you keep extending the the realm of belief you can make UA work, but to say that the entire cosmos, from the stars and planets to the galaxies to the universal filament is all rotating the tiny ass speck of the earths flat disc, with all of that mass for no reason at all accelerating in one direction at nearly the speed of light just to try and come up with a counter theory to 'all mass attracts other mass' really flies in the face of Occam's Razor; by several orders of magnitude.
It's not traveling at the speed of light. Speed is relative! The speed it is traveling is dependant on the observer. There are stars in RET which appear to be traveling at nearly light speed. If you were in orbit around such a star moving at that speed you would believe that you were stationary.
Also, Occams Razor favors a Flat Earth on this matter. What is the simplest explanation, that when I step off the edge of a chair and see the earth rise upwards to meet my feet, that invisible undiscovered bends in space fabric/undiscovered subatomic puller particles have pulled me to the earth, or that the earth has simply risen upwards exactly as I've observed?
Whatever physical process is pushing the earth beneath it in FET can be a mechanism within known physics. Lots of things can push. The mystery needed for gravity pulling is undiscovered and needs an entirely new branch of physics to occur.
-
The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole. Therefore, they are moving upward with the Earth. This explains why they do not 'blue shift', as you say. And yes, the stars are much smaller than you believe.
So over a hundred billion stars, each with a few planets each we think now, so a few hundred billion planets, including the hundreds of billions of observable galaxies, each with their own hundred billion stars and hundreds of billions of planets and the galactic filaments those things comprise? What is forcing this much mass to stick to such a tiny disk?
Hell, even if the stars are microscopic the mass of the stars all orbiting around us for no reason would be staggering.
No extra solar planets have been discovered. Astronomers assume a lot about the slight wobbles and brightness/color variations in the stars.
Tom, we've explained this to you repeatedly. It's not just the distant stars' color variations, but rather their spectral shifts. See, again: “Cosmos,” episode 8, “Sisters of the Sun,”
Color change is a shift in spectrum.
But the detected and verified spectral shift is more than just a color change. What don't you understand about spectral lines in that episode?
-
Whatever physical process is pushing the earth beneath it in FET can be a mechanism within known physics. Lots of things can push. The mystery needed for gravity pulling is undiscovered and needs an entirely new branch of physics to occur.
No, there is no known mechanism that can produce the required energy (more than a centillion joules) to accelerate the FE over such a known history.
-
Whatever physical process is pushing the earth beneath it in FET can be a mechanism within known physics. Lots of things can push. The mystery needed for gravity pulling is undiscovered and needs an entirely new branch of physics to occur.
No, there is no known mechanism that can produce the required energy (more than a centillion joules) to accelerate the FE over such a known history.
And it is nearly everything in the heavens as well that is being accelerated. Contrary to what Tom is asserting theThey got the math generally correct enough to match observations (although not really, gravity fails in a lot of things like explaining the motion of the galaxies, and needs the universe to be filled with dark matter/energy to work). The main problem is that of scale. The stars and celestial bodies in RET are much bigger than the ones in FET, which shrinks the power of 'gravity', and somewhat changes its nature and implications, under the FET model.
Also, it is possible to accelerate indefinitely in space. This concept is not even cherry picking Special Relativity Theory. The relativity of motion was spoken about in Ancient Greece by Aristotle and others after him. It's old! The only new thing Einstein brought into his rip-off work was lumping it together with the relativity of time.
For a body traveling at 9.8 meters per second per second, from one second to the next it has increased its acceleration by 9.8 meters and has traveled that distance. It does not know about, or is affected by, or cares about, the previous increases in acceleration. In its reference frame it is static from one moment to the next. At some observation point, perhaps, 9.8 m/s/s would be appear to approach (but never quite appear to reach) the speed of light. The keyword is: appear.
Speed is relative. It is an outside observer phenomenon. An asteroid in space can be traveling 4 miles an hour or 4000 miles an hour depending on the speed of who is looking at it, relative to that asteroid.
No I mean cherry picking GR, the effects described are accepted, but one of the things it shows is that a large shape that is being held together by whatever you want to call the effect of gravity will form a sphere, a flat disc goes counter to the model that the math of GR predicts for celestial bodies. Even galaxy's are extremely slowly rotating secretion discs much like the model for an early solar system. what mater doesn't fall into the central object (the super massive black hole) clumps together and slowly forms bodies. In the galaxies case, round stars, in the solar systems case, round planets.
I know that if you keep extending the the realm of belief you can make UA work, but to say that the entire cosmos, from the stars and planets to the galaxies to the universal filament is all rotating the tiny ass speck of the earths flat disc, with all of that mass for no reason at all accelerating in one direction at nearly the speed of light just to try and come up with a counter theory to 'all mass attracts other mass' really flies in the face of Occam's Razor; by several orders of magnitude.
It's not traveling at the speed of light. Speed is relative! The speed it is traveling is dependant on the observer. There are stars in RET which appear to be traveling at nearly light speed. If you were in orbit around such a star moving at that speed you would believe that you were stationary.
Also, Occams Razor favors a Flat Earth on this matter. What is the simplest explanation, that when I step off the edge of a chair and see the earth rise upwards to meet my feet, that invisible undiscovered bends in space fabric/undiscovered subatomic puller particles have pulled me to the earth, or that the earth has simply risen upwards exactly as I've observed?
Whatever physical process is pushing the earth beneath it in FET can be a mechanism within known physics. Lots of things can push. The mystery needed for gravity pulling is undiscovered and needs an entirely new branch of physics to occur.
They got the math generally correct enough to match observations (although not really, gravity fails in a lot of things like explaining the motion of the galaxies, and needs the universe to be filled with dark matter/energy to work). The main problem is that of scale. The stars and celestial bodies in RET are much bigger than the ones in FET, which shrinks the power of 'gravity', and somewhat changes its nature and implications, under the FET model.
Also, it is possible to accelerate indefinitely in space. This concept is not even cherry picking Special Relativity Theory. The relativity of motion was spoken about in Ancient Greece by Aristotle and others after him. It's old! The only new thing Einstein brought into his rip-off work was lumping it together with the relativity of time.
For a body traveling at 9.8 meters per second per second, from one second to the next it has increased its acceleration by 9.8 meters and has traveled that distance. It does not know about, or is affected by, or cares about, the previous increases in acceleration. In its reference frame it is static from one moment to the next. At some observation point, perhaps, 9.8 m/s/s would be appear to approach (but never quite appear to reach) the speed of light. The keyword is: appear.
Speed is relative. It is an outside observer phenomenon. An asteroid in space can be traveling 4 miles an hour or 4000 miles an hour depending on the speed of who is looking at it, relative to that asteroid.
No I mean cherry picking GR, the effects described are accepted, but one of the things it shows is that a large shape that is being held together by whatever you want to call the effect of gravity will form a sphere, a flat disc goes counter to the model that the math of GR predicts for celestial bodies. Even galaxy's are extremely slowly rotating secretion discs much like the model for an early solar system. what mater doesn't fall into the central object (the super massive black hole) clumps together and slowly forms bodies. In the galaxies case, round stars, in the solar systems case, round planets.
I know that if you keep extending the the realm of belief you can make UA work, but to say that the entire cosmos, from the stars and planets to the galaxies to the universal filament is all rotating the tiny ass speck of the earths flat disc, with all of that mass for no reason at all accelerating in one direction at nearly the speed of light just to try and come up with a counter theory to 'all mass attracts other mass' really flies in the face of Occam's Razor; by several orders of magnitude.
It's not traveling at the speed of light. Speed is relative! The speed it is traveling is dependant on the observer. There are stars in RET which appear to be traveling at nearly light speed. If you were in orbit around such a star moving at that speed you would believe that you were stationary.
Also, Occams Razor favors a Flat Earth on this matter. What is the simplest explanation, that when I step off the edge of a chair and see the earth rise upwards to meet my feet, that invisible undiscovered bends in space fabric/undiscovered subatomic puller particles have pulled me to the earth, or that the earth has simply risen upwards exactly as I've observed?
Whatever physical process is pushing the earth beneath it in FET can be a mechanism within known physics. Lots of things can push. The mystery needed for gravity pulling is undiscovered and needs an entirely new branch of physics to occur.
Occam's razor cannot favor the UA because it is not a competing explanation, it is not even satisfactory. When you have an explanation for the variation of g at altitude or latitude or next to a mountain you can try reasserting this but as of right now, even with all the unknown parts of gravity it is still magnitudes more fleshed out than UA.
-
Dark matter is just one of the many assumptions that RE'ers make to make their model work. Flat Earth Theory makes no assumptions, and is the simplest explanation for what we see (Earth looks flat). Therefore Occam's razor does favor FET.
-
Dark matter is just one of the many assumptions that RE'ers make to make their model work.
No one assumes dark matter exists. A gap in knowledge was encountered and rather than shrugging it off a hypothesis was formulated to explain it which is being tested.
Flat Earth Theory makes no assumptions, and is the simplest explanation for what we see (Earth looks flat).
You assume Aether exists. You assume the UA. You assume that the laws of perspective are wrong. You assume Rowbotham is right. You assume we have never been to space. The list goes on and on.
Therefore occam's razor does favor FET.
Considering there is direct observation of the Earth's curvature even without space travel, your argument would appear to be incorrect.
We
[/quote]
FET makes assumptions, do not kid yourself.
-
No one assumes dark matter exists.
What? Any scientist who studies astrophysics assumes dark matter exists. And apparently, according to them, dark matter accounts for most of the matter in the entire universe.
A gap in knowledge was encountered and rather than shrugging it off a hypothesis was formulated to explain it which is being tested.
Yet there is no evidence for it except fluctuations in gravity that are unexplained in your model. That's where the assumption comes in. It's rather sad that an assumption makes up most of the matter in the universe, wouldn't you say? It's almost like without that the entire model falls apart.
So, don't kid yourself. Dark matter is purely conjecture.
-
No one assumes dark matter exists.
What? Any scientist who studies astrophysics assumes dark matter exists. And apparently, according to them, dark matter accounts for most of the matter in the entire universe.
A gap in knowledge was encountered and rather than shrugging it off a hypothesis was formulated to explain it which is being tested.
Yet there is no evidence for it except fluctuations in gravity that are unexplained in your model. That's where the assumption comes in. It's rather sad that an assumption makes up most of the matter in the universe, wouldn't you say? It's almost like without that the entire model falls apart.
So, don't kid yourself. Dark matter is purely conjecture.
Considering I said Dark Matter was a hypothesis I don't think your "gotcha!" post was very cutting.
From the Wikipedia page:
[Dark Matter] is otherwise hypothesized to simply be matter that is not reactant to light.[3]
(emphasis my own)
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter
-
Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption. I don't care what word you choose to use to make it sound more legitimate.
RET hinges on dark matter the same way FET hinges on aether.
We're not so different.
-
Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption. I don't care what word you choose to use to make it sound more legitimate.
What? No. If they were taking the hypothesis as true, you would be right, but they aren't. There is an active search for Dark Matter.
RET hinges on dark matter the same way FET hinges on aether.
We're not so different.
Neither one of your premises are true, therefore your conclusion is also not true.
-
Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption. I don't care what word you choose to use to make it sound more legitimate.
What? No. If they were taking the hypothesis as true, you would be right, but they aren't. There is an active search for Dark Matter.
RET hinges on dark matter the same way FET hinges on aether.
We're not so different.
Neither one of your premises are true, therefore your conclusion is also not true.
Just as aether is a hypothesis. And aether has just as much supporting evidence as dark matter. Therefore aether is not an assumption but a serious scientific hypothesis that we are actively studying.
We can both play this game.
-
Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption. I don't care what word you choose to use to make it sound more legitimate.
What? No. If they were taking the hypothesis as true, you would be right, but they aren't. There is an active search for Dark Matter.
RET hinges on dark matter the same way FET hinges on aether.
We're not so different.
Neither one of your premises are true, therefore your conclusion is also not true.
Just as aether is a hypothesis. And aether has just as much supporting evidence as dark matter. Therefore aether is not an assumption but a serious scientific hypothesis that we are actively studying.
We can both play this game.
Who is 'we'? Need references to the study.
-
Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption. I don't care what word you choose to use to make it sound more legitimate.
RET hinges on dark matter the same way FET hinges on aether.
We're not so different.
Since 2006...
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html
-
Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption. I don't care what word you choose to use to make it sound more legitimate.
RET hinges on dark matter the same way FET hinges on aether.
We're not so different.
Since 2006...
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html
nasa.gov
Of course they're found "direct evidence". ::)
"Proof" I mean. ;D
-
Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption. I don't care what word you choose to use to make it sound more legitimate.
RET hinges on dark matter the same way FET hinges on aether.
We're not so different.
Since 2006...
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/aug/HQ_06297_CHANDRA_Dark_Matter.html
nasa.gov
Of course they're found "direct evidence". ::)
"Proof" I mean. ;D
Special Pleading.
Should we just assume that anytime anyone produces evidence contrary to your world view, that you'll just plead the the conspiracy is hiding the truth?
-
Should we just assume that anytime anyone produces evidence contrary to your world view, that you'll just plead the the conspiracy is hiding the truth?
You're acting like you're new here.
NASA is not a credible source, you know this Gulliver.
-
Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption.
Incorrect. Observed gravitational lensing (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/04/20/how-gravitational-lensing-show/) supports the existence of dark matter.
RET hinges on dark matter the same way FET hinges on aether.
Incorrect. The earth was shown to be round long before dark matter was proposed.
-
Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption.
Incorrect. Observed gravitational lensing (http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/04/20/how-gravitational-lensing-show/) supports the existence of dark matter.
Incorrect. Dark matter supports the existence of gravitational lensing. Dark matter is the assumption. There's no direct evidence of dark matter.
-
Dark matter is a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Therefore it is an assumption. I don't care what word you choose to use to make it sound more legitimate.
What? No. If they were taking the hypothesis as true, you would be right, but they aren't. There is an active search for Dark Matter.
RET hinges on dark matter the same way FET hinges on aether.
We're not so different.
Neither one of your premises are true, therefore your conclusion is also not true.
Just as aether is a hypothesis. And aether has just as much supporting evidence as dark matter. Therefore aether is not an assumption but a serious scientific hypothesis that we are actively studying.
We can both play this game.
I have no problem granting that if you tell me what would falsify your Aether hypothesis.
-
Incorrect. Dark matter supports the existence of gravitational lensing. Dark matter is the assumption. There's no direct evidence of dark matter.
You do realize that it's called "dark" matter because it isn't (currently) directly observable, right? In this case, dark matter is indirectly observed by its effect on light (A.K.A. gravitational lensing).
-
Incorrect. Dark matter supports the existence of gravitational lensing. Dark matter is the assumption. There's no direct evidence of dark matter.
You do realize that it's called "dark" matter because it isn't (currently) directly observable, right? In this case, dark matter is indirectly observed by its effect on light (A.K.A. gravitational lensing).
Incorrect. There is no evidence of dark matter. It is a hypothesis.
Aether is also invisible and not directly observable. It is equally viable.
-
Incorrect. Dark matter supports the existence of gravitational lensing. Dark matter is the assumption. There's no direct evidence of dark matter.
You do realize that it's called "dark" matter because it isn't (currently) directly observable, right? In this case, dark matter is indirectly observed by its effect on light (A.K.A. gravitational lensing).
Minus the modelling, the indirect evidence and the falsifiability. It is pretty crass to equate your non-work to the hard work of others.
Incorrect. There is no evidence of dark matter. It is a hypothesis.
Aether is also invisible and not directly observable. It is equally viable.
-
Should we just assume that anytime anyone produces evidence contrary to your world view, that you'll just plead the the conspiracy is hiding the truth?
You're acting like you're new here.
NASA is not a credible source, you know this Gulliver.
I know nothing of the sort. I accept or reject evidence without appeal to authority or poisoning the well, but rather the experiment's merits. You know, I treat sources fairly. You might want to try that methodology.