Remember me
▼ Content

Relativity theory



Page 8 of 8<<<678
28-10-2022 03:41
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually according to relativity, the farthest points of the universe cannot be traveling at 5 times light speed as they are,

Nobody has any information on the farthest points of the universe.

You are gullible.


Actually the farthest points of the visible universe are traveling at 5 times light speed says NASA. One theory is that they are not being fueled by the big bang or this universe at all but that there is an attractive force from outside the universe pulling on the mass, instead of gravity from this universe pushing it away. Not saying that I agree with this, but Einstein would have no clue as he actually claimed that the universe was not expanding at all, being the buffoon that he was and too dumb to comb his hair and all.


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
28-10-2022 03:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Engineers use Newton's law of motion, Newton's law of gravitation, Kepler's laws, and Einstein's General Relativity law when navigating in space.

Yes, when a computation is within the same inertial frame of reference then Newton's is used. If the computation involves multiple inertial frames of reference then Relativity is required. For a space-faring vehicle to operate, it is only in one reference frame at any given moment and can act on Newtonian models. For space navigation (planning) through multiple reference frames, Relativity is needed.

Into the Night wrote: GPS is based on Kepler's laws, Newton's laws, and Einstein's laws.

GPS is a timing system based on Relativity and the time dilation it describes.between the differing reference frames of ground level and orbit. As such, the system utilizes ground uplink stations to minimize the effects of time dilation. GPS is based on the Relativity conclusion that clocks cannot be synchronized between differing reference frames.


Quite right. A GPS satellite sends out two signals:
It says where it is (using time, adjusted for inertial reference differences as you describe), and a beacon. This beacon is again time dilated and effectively is like a train whistle as a train passes you, rising in frequency and falling as it passes (doppler effect). This rise and fall of frequency that you experience as the satellite passes varies with your distance to the satellite. This allows you to locate yourself anywhere within a circle on the surface.

By using multiple satellites, you can use intersecting circles to determine a point common to all of them.

Aircraft in the air are effectively 'on the surface' as far as 2D position is concerned and relative to the high altitude of the satellites. You can further determine altitude (roughly, within +- 100ft) by using spheres instead of circles.

All GPS receivers actually use spheres. A sphere intersecting the surface produces a circle.

It's a pretty cool system, compensating for the speed of the satellite and everything. It only requires one ground station, which acts as the reference time coordinate (in Boulder, CO) and net control station.

Ground based navigation systems, such as VOR, don't require the compensations or a central control station, but they are also less accurate. ILS systems are much more accurate than VOR, and are used for final guidance to a runway. GPS can develop inaccuracies due to various effects. It can be used for a non-precision approach though. It becomes a precision approach system when coupled with ground based stations near the airport.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-10-2022 06:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Swan wrote:Actually the farthest points of the visible universe are traveling at 5 times light speed says NASA.

Now it's a question of whether you believe it, or whether you call boooolsch't.

Swan wrote: One theory is that they are not being fueled by the big bang or this universe at all but that there is an attractive force from outside the universe pulling on the mass, instead of gravity from this universe pushing it away.

Another theory is that there isn't any matter anywhere moving faster than light.

Swan wrote: Not saying that I agree with this, but Einstein would have no clue as he actually claimed that the universe was not expanding at all, being the buffoon that he was and too dumb to comb his hair and all.

The bottom line is that what Einstein claimed is contained in General Relativity, and you don't really understand it. Einstein postulated a particularly non-intuitive model of the universe and nobody has found an example that shows Relativity to be false. Einstein did not deny that planets are moving or the general red shift of celestial bodies. You would do well to get a better grasp of the theory.
28-10-2022 07:54
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(891)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T70nOYCQOGQ&ab_channel=ItsBS


Twin paradox explained. No solution. Theory debunked.
Edited on 28-10-2022 07:55
28-10-2022 08:03
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(891)
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA516975.pdf

GPS AND RELATIVITY: AN ENGINEERING
OVERVIEW


INTRODUCTION
The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not
include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory
of relativity would seem to require -



GPS relativity myth debunked.
28-10-2022 13:20
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually the farthest points of the visible universe are traveling at 5 times light speed says NASA.

Now it's a question of whether you believe it, or whether you call boooolsch't.

Swan wrote: One theory is that they are not being fueled by the big bang or this universe at all but that there is an attractive force from outside the universe pulling on the mass, instead of gravity from this universe pushing it away.

Another theory is that there isn't any matter anywhere moving faster than light.

Swan wrote: Not saying that I agree with this, but Einstein would have no clue as he actually claimed that the universe was not expanding at all, being the buffoon that he was and too dumb to comb his hair and all.

The bottom line is that what Einstein claimed is contained in General Relativity, and you don't really understand it. Einstein postulated a particularly non-intuitive model of the universe and nobody has found an example that shows Relativity to be false. Einstein did not deny that planets are moving or the general red shift of celestial bodies. You would do well to get a better grasp of the theory.


LOL the funny thing about relativity is that with millions of physics grads like you all working together, that none of them or the sum of all of them combined can prove relativity, so it remains a theory. Furthermore, whether matter is speeding faster than light is irrelevant because galaxies are speeding away at an ever-increasing speed meaning that the big bang and gravity cannot be the cause. This is why dark matter is speculated, theory number 2 needed to validate theory number 1. So here it is in a nutshell, the theory says. Gravity and matter are pushing themselves apart, but there is 85 percent less matter than needed for this, the math dictates this and math is never wrong, so now we theorize dark matter to fill the void, but the dark matter needs to be 85 percent more than all the matter in the universe, and it's all invisible.

Well gollee gee okeedokee sir.

Combs are for dumb people



LOL if you saw this moron on the street you would put a quarter in his cup


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 28-10-2022 13:26
28-10-2022 16:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Swan wrote:LOL the funny thing about relativity is that with millions of physics grads like you all working together, that none of them or the sum of all of them combined can prove relativity, so it remains a theory.

LOL. LOL. Yawn. Too funny. This goes back to your sluggishness in the uptake. You just described all of science. It's all just a collection of models/theories that cannot be proved/confirmed.

What sets science apart from other theories and models is the characteristic of falsifiability and the survival of the scientific method. You keep avoiding this point. General Relativity is a falsifiable model that predicts nature, and it has, thus far, survived the scientific method, i.e. no one can show it to be false.

You keep mentioning that General Relativity is a theory. Yes. Well done. Kudos.

You keep mentioning that General Relativity has not been proved/confirmed. Correct. Nothing in science has.

You keep avoiding General Relativity's falsifiability. That kills your position. You keep trying to hide the fact that you have never shown it to be false. That chops your argument off at the knees.

Swan wrote: Furthermore, whether matter is speeding faster than light is irrelevant

Moments ago, it was the entire basis for your argument.

Swan wrote:... because galaxies are speeding away at an ever-increasing speed

Why should any rational adult believe that?

Swan wrote: ... meaning that the big bang and gravity cannot be the cause.

No cause is required for something that does not exist.

I have a better idea. Let's just claim that quantum computing is the cause and just call it a moraine.

Swan wrote: This is why dark matter is speculated,

I don't speculate it.

Swan wrote:So here it is in a nutshell, the theory says. Gravity and matter are pushing themselves apart,

Nope. You should have called booooooooooooooooooooolsch't.

Swan wrote: but there is 85 percent less matter than needed for this,

Standard subjunctive error. The universe does not somehow contain only 15% of what it otherwise should contain. There is no "should" in science.

Swan wrote: the math dictates this and math is never wrong,

There is no "The Math" that shows this.

Swan wrote: so now we theorize dark matter to fill the void,

You need to be careful whenever you use the Marxist "we." Science and scientific illiteracy don't mix very well.

.
28-10-2022 19:57
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:LOL the funny thing about relativity is that with millions of physics grads like you all working together, that none of them or the sum of all of them combined can prove relativity, so it remains a theory.

LOL. LOL. Yawn. Too funny. This goes back to your sluggishness in the uptake. You just described all of science. It's all just a collection of models/theories that cannot be proved/confirmed.

What sets science apart from other theories and models is the characteristic of falsifiability and the survival of the scientific method. You keep avoiding this point. General Relativity is a falsifiable model that predicts nature, and it has, thus far, survived the scientific method, i.e. no one can show it to be false.

You keep mentioning that General Relativity is a theory. Yes. Well done. Kudos.

You keep mentioning that General Relativity has not been proved/confirmed. Correct. Nothing in science has.

You keep avoiding General Relativity's falsifiability. That kills your position. You keep trying to hide the fact that you have never shown it to be false. That chops your argument off at the knees.

Swan wrote: Furthermore, whether matter is speeding faster than light is irrelevant

Moments ago, it was the entire basis for your argument.

Swan wrote:... because galaxies are speeding away at an ever-increasing speed

Why should any rational adult believe that?

Swan wrote: ... meaning that the big bang and gravity cannot be the cause.

No cause is required for something that does not exist.

I have a better idea. Let's just claim that quantum computing is the cause and just call it a moraine.

Swan wrote: This is why dark matter is speculated,

I don't speculate it.

Swan wrote:So here it is in a nutshell, the theory says. Gravity and matter are pushing themselves apart,

Nope. You should have called booooooooooooooooooooolsch't.

Swan wrote: but there is 85 percent less matter than needed for this,

Standard subjunctive error. The universe does not somehow contain only 15% of what it otherwise should contain. There is no "should" in science.

Swan wrote: the math dictates this and math is never wrong,

There is no "The Math" that shows this.

Swan wrote: so now we theorize dark matter to fill the void,

You need to be careful whenever you use the Marxist "we." Science and scientific illiteracy don't mix very well.

.


In other words when you cannot form a rebuttal you just babble that everything in science is a theory. The fact is that everything in theoretical physics is speculative, which is why you cannot claim that relativity is fact. However the trajectory of a rocket or missile can be calculated to the exact place of impact and it can be known exactly how much fuel will be needed and what speeds will be achieved because aeronautical science is not speculative but factual.

You may now continue wanking


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
28-10-2022 20:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually the farthest points of the visible universe are traveling at 5 times light speed says NASA.

Now it's a question of whether you believe it, or whether you call boooolsch't.

Swan wrote: One theory is that they are not being fueled by the big bang or this universe at all but that there is an attractive force from outside the universe pulling on the mass, instead of gravity from this universe pushing it away.

Another theory is that there isn't any matter anywhere moving faster than light.

Swan wrote: Not saying that I agree with this, but Einstein would have no clue as he actually claimed that the universe was not expanding at all, being the buffoon that he was and too dumb to comb his hair and all.

The bottom line is that what Einstein claimed is contained in General Relativity, and you don't really understand it. Einstein postulated a particularly non-intuitive model of the universe and nobody has found an example that shows Relativity to be false. Einstein did not deny that planets are moving or the general red shift of celestial bodies. You would do well to get a better grasp of the theory.


LOL the funny thing about relativity is that with millions of physics grads like you all working together, that none of them or the sum of all of them combined can prove relativity, so it remains a theory.

It is not possible to prove a theory True. Science has no proofs.
Swan wrote:
Furthermore, whether matter is speeding faster than light is irrelevant because galaxies are speeding away at an ever-increasing speed meaning that the big bang and gravity cannot be the cause.

You can't see all galaxies.
Swan wrote:
This is why dark matter is speculated, theory number 2 needed to validate theory number 1. So here it is in a nutshell, the theory says. Gravity and matter are pushing themselves apart, but there is 85 percent less matter than needed for this, the math dictates this and math is never wrong, so now we theorize dark matter to fill the void, but the dark matter needs to be 85 percent more than all the matter in the universe, and it's all invisible.

What is 85% of infinity?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-10-2022 20:13
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(891)
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.html


However since the Earth is rotating, the speed of a satellite relative to a GPS receiver will be different at different latitudes. Therefore the amount of dilation should also be different. That 7200 ns was calculated relative to a pole, where the Earth is not moving and only the satellite's speed of 3870 m/s need be considered. If the calculation was done at the equator where the surface moves at 465 m/s and GPS satellites cross at 55 degrees, the SR time dilation works out to 6300 ns. That's a 900 ns difference between pole and equator which presumably would yield an increasingly inaccurate position determination of 270 meters per day.

Next we have a problem with altitude because the 45900 ns figure was calculated for sea level. This figure will decrease as we move higher and experience less gravity. For example, at 1060 metres above sea level there will be a decrease of 10 ns per day. This presumably would lead to an inaccuracy of 3 metres per day, accumulating up to 1 km per year. Aeroplanes flying at 10km would be worse off; accumulating a 10 km error per year.

If it were necessary to accommodate for relativity at different latitudes and altitudes, the calculations would be very complex and would need to be done at the receiver. But they aren't done there: only a fixed time adjustment is made at the satellites for all points on Earth. This fact alone demonstrates that Relativity is irrelevant to the GPS operation.


Conclusion

The presence of Special and General Relativity effects has no bearing on the accuracy of GPS operation. In summary, it wouldn't matter whether clocks aboard GPS satellites ran faster or slower than Earth's clocks or even changed their speed each day. Just so long as the satellites' clocks remained synchronised with each other and the time-difference relative Earth's clocks didn't become too large, GPS receivers would continue to calculate their correct position.

The GPS is certainly an excellent navigational aid. But from an operational viewpoint at least, it doesn't serve as a test for Relativity. Scientists( and relativists) should stop calling it that.

Edited on 28-10-2022 20:14
28-10-2022 20:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:LOL the funny thing about relativity is that with millions of physics grads like you all working together, that none of them or the sum of all of them combined can prove relativity, so it remains a theory.

LOL. LOL. Yawn. Too funny. This goes back to your sluggishness in the uptake. You just described all of science. It's all just a collection of models/theories that cannot be proved/confirmed.

What sets science apart from other theories and models is the characteristic of falsifiability and the survival of the scientific method. You keep avoiding this point. General Relativity is a falsifiable model that predicts nature, and it has, thus far, survived the scientific method, i.e. no one can show it to be false.

You keep mentioning that General Relativity is a theory. Yes. Well done. Kudos.

You keep mentioning that General Relativity has not been proved/confirmed. Correct. Nothing in science has.

You keep avoiding General Relativity's falsifiability. That kills your position. You keep trying to hide the fact that you have never shown it to be false. That chops your argument off at the knees.

Swan wrote: Furthermore, whether matter is speeding faster than light is irrelevant

Moments ago, it was the entire basis for your argument.

Swan wrote:... because galaxies are speeding away at an ever-increasing speed

Why should any rational adult believe that?

Swan wrote: ... meaning that the big bang and gravity cannot be the cause.

No cause is required for something that does not exist.

I have a better idea. Let's just claim that quantum computing is the cause and just call it a moraine.

Swan wrote: This is why dark matter is speculated,

I don't speculate it.

Swan wrote:So here it is in a nutshell, the theory says. Gravity and matter are pushing themselves apart,

Nope. You should have called booooooooooooooooooooolsch't.

Swan wrote: but there is 85 percent less matter than needed for this,

Standard subjunctive error. The universe does not somehow contain only 15% of what it otherwise should contain. There is no "should" in science.

Swan wrote: the math dictates this and math is never wrong,

There is no "The Math" that shows this.

Swan wrote: so now we theorize dark matter to fill the void,

You need to be careful whenever you use the Marxist "we." Science and scientific illiteracy don't mix very well.

.


In other words when you cannot form a rebuttal

He's not trying to argue that science is not a set of theories.
Swan wrote:
you just babble that everything in science is a theory.

It is. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more. That's it. That's all.
Swan wrote:
The fact is that everything in theoretical physics is speculative, which is why you cannot claim that relativity is fact.

Learn what 'fact' means. It does NOT mean 'proof' or 'Universal Truth'. Redefinition fallacy (fact<->proof, theory<->speculation).
Swan wrote:
However the trajectory of a rocket or missile can be calculated to the exact place of impact and it can be known exactly how much fuel will be needed and what speeds will be achieved because aeronautical science is not speculative but factual.

Define 'exact'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-10-2022 20:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Xadoman wrote:
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.html


However since the Earth is rotating, the speed of a satellite relative to a GPS receiver will be different at different latitudes. Therefore the amount of dilation should also be different. That 7200 ns was calculated relative to a pole, where the Earth is not moving and only the satellite's speed of 3870 m/s need be considered. If the calculation was done at the equator where the surface moves at 465 m/s and GPS satellites cross at 55 degrees, the SR time dilation works out to 6300 ns. That's a 900 ns difference between pole and equator which presumably would yield an increasingly inaccurate position determination of 270 meters per day.

Next we have a problem with altitude because the 45900 ns figure was calculated for sea level. This figure will decrease as we move higher and experience less gravity. For example, at 1060 metres above sea level there will be a decrease of 10 ns per day. This presumably would lead to an inaccuracy of 3 metres per day, accumulating up to 1 km per year. Aeroplanes flying at 10km would be worse off; accumulating a 10 km error per year.

If it were necessary to accommodate for relativity at different latitudes and altitudes, the calculations would be very complex and would need to be done at the receiver. But they aren't done there: only a fixed time adjustment is made at the satellites for all points on Earth. This fact alone demonstrates that Relativity is irrelevant to the GPS operation.


Conclusion

The presence of Special and General Relativity effects has no bearing on the accuracy of GPS operation. In summary, it wouldn't matter whether clocks aboard GPS satellites ran faster or slower than Earth's clocks or even changed their speed each day. Just so long as the satellites' clocks remained synchronised with each other and the time-difference relative Earth's clocks didn't become too large, GPS receivers would continue to calculate their correct position.

The GPS is certainly an excellent navigational aid. But from an operational viewpoint at least, it doesn't serve as a test for Relativity. Scientists( and relativists) should stop calling it that.
Still just can't a grasp of relativity, can ya?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-10-2022 20:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Xadoman wrote:However since the Earth is rotating, the speed of a satellite relative to a GPS receiver will be different at different latitudes.

Totally immaterial.

Xadoman wrote:Therefore the amount of dilation should also be different.

How different (beyond negligible) do you believe that will be?

Xadoman wrote: That 7200 ns was calculated relative to a pole, where the Earth is not moving

Incorrect.

Xadoman wrote:and only the satellite's speed of 3870 m/s need be considered.

Nope.

Xadoman wrote: If the calculation was done at the equator where the surface moves at 465 m/s and GPS satellites cross at 55 degrees, the SR time dilation works out to 6300 ns.

Bad math. Erroneous assumptions. Meaningless drivel.

Xadoman wrote: This presumably would lead to an inaccuracy of 3 metres per day, accumulating up to 1 km per year.

Too funny.

Question: What are Master Constrol Stations and what do they do?

Xadoman wrote: Aeroplanes flying at 10km would be worse off;

Why?

Xadoman wrote:accumulating a 10 km error per year.

Too funny.

Question: What are Master Constrol Stations and what do they do?

Xadoman wrote:If it were necessary to accommodate for relativity at different latitudes and altitudes, the calculations would be very complex

Yes, the calculations to build the GPS constellation and to accommodate General Relativity were complex. Engineers rolled up their sleeves and did the required work.

Xadoman wrote:The presence of Special and General Relativity effects has no bearing on the accuracy of GPS operation.

Confusing wording. Yes, time dilation definitely renders GPS less accurate so steps are taken to ameliorate the effect.

Xadoman wrote: In summary, it wouldn't matter whether clocks aboard GPS satellites ran faster or slower than Earth's clocks or even changed their speed each day.

Xadoman, this statement that you posted earns you the coveted "ID 10T" title. Any eighth-grader would have called booooolsch't, but you were too busy bending over furniture for someone who was doing your thinking for you, probably the same person who is telling you to buy Solana at the dip. This is the stupidest statement I've seen from someone other than keepit.

Xadoman wrote: Just so long as the satellites' clocks remained synchronised with each other and the time-difference relative Earth's clocks

It's ironic that General Relativity explains what's wrong with your mistaken criticism of General Relativity.

Xadoman wrote:The GPS is certainly an excellent navigational aid.

Finish that thought. Why is GPS an excellent navigational aid? Why is it able to do what it does?

Xadoman wrote: But from an operational viewpoint at least, it doesn't serve as a test for Relativity.

... other than serving as "living proof."
28-10-2022 21:06
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually the farthest points of the visible universe are traveling at 5 times light speed says NASA.

Now it's a question of whether you believe it, or whether you call boooolsch't.

Swan wrote: One theory is that they are not being fueled by the big bang or this universe at all but that there is an attractive force from outside the universe pulling on the mass, instead of gravity from this universe pushing it away.

Another theory is that there isn't any matter anywhere moving faster than light.

Swan wrote: Not saying that I agree with this, but Einstein would have no clue as he actually claimed that the universe was not expanding at all, being the buffoon that he was and too dumb to comb his hair and all.

The bottom line is that what Einstein claimed is contained in General Relativity, and you don't really understand it. Einstein postulated a particularly non-intuitive model of the universe and nobody has found an example that shows Relativity to be false. Einstein did not deny that planets are moving or the general red shift of celestial bodies. You would do well to get a better grasp of the theory.


LOL the funny thing about relativity is that with millions of physics grads like you all working together, that none of them or the sum of all of them combined can prove relativity, so it remains a theory.

It is not possible to prove a theory True. Science has no proofs.
Swan wrote:
Furthermore, whether matter is speeding faster than light is irrelevant because galaxies are speeding away at an ever-increasing speed meaning that the big bang and gravity cannot be the cause.

You can't see all galaxies.
Swan wrote:
This is why dark matter is speculated, theory number 2 needed to validate theory number 1. So here it is in a nutshell, the theory says. Gravity and matter are pushing themselves apart, but there is 85 percent less matter than needed for this, the math dictates this and math is never wrong, so now we theorize dark matter to fill the void, but the dark matter needs to be 85 percent more than all the matter in the universe, and it's all invisible.

What is 85% of infinity?


Not 85 percent of infinity, it is 85 percent more known mass to create the forces needed to expand the universe


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
28-10-2022 21:06
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(891)
IBdamann, please go and read the link I posted. You do not apparently know how GPS works and you have been brainwashed by mainstream "experts and authorothies".

Here it is again.

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm


IBdaMann , it is time to come fully home. Most of that they have been feeding you is bs.
Edited on 28-10-2022 21:17
28-10-2022 21:08
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:LOL the funny thing about relativity is that with millions of physics grads like you all working together, that none of them or the sum of all of them combined can prove relativity, so it remains a theory.

LOL. LOL. Yawn. Too funny. This goes back to your sluggishness in the uptake. You just described all of science. It's all just a collection of models/theories that cannot be proved/confirmed.

What sets science apart from other theories and models is the characteristic of falsifiability and the survival of the scientific method. You keep avoiding this point. General Relativity is a falsifiable model that predicts nature, and it has, thus far, survived the scientific method, i.e. no one can show it to be false.

You keep mentioning that General Relativity is a theory. Yes. Well done. Kudos.

You keep mentioning that General Relativity has not been proved/confirmed. Correct. Nothing in science has.

You keep avoiding General Relativity's falsifiability. That kills your position. You keep trying to hide the fact that you have never shown it to be false. That chops your argument off at the knees.

Swan wrote: Furthermore, whether matter is speeding faster than light is irrelevant

Moments ago, it was the entire basis for your argument.

Swan wrote:... because galaxies are speeding away at an ever-increasing speed

Why should any rational adult believe that?

Swan wrote: ... meaning that the big bang and gravity cannot be the cause.

No cause is required for something that does not exist.

I have a better idea. Let's just claim that quantum computing is the cause and just call it a moraine.

Swan wrote: This is why dark matter is speculated,

I don't speculate it.

Swan wrote:So here it is in a nutshell, the theory says. Gravity and matter are pushing themselves apart,

Nope. You should have called booooooooooooooooooooolsch't.

Swan wrote: but there is 85 percent less matter than needed for this,

Standard subjunctive error. The universe does not somehow contain only 15% of what it otherwise should contain. There is no "should" in science.

Swan wrote: the math dictates this and math is never wrong,

There is no "The Math" that shows this.

Swan wrote: so now we theorize dark matter to fill the void,

You need to be careful whenever you use the Marxist "we." Science and scientific illiteracy don't mix very well.

.


In other words when you cannot form a rebuttal

He's not trying to argue that science is not a set of theories.
Swan wrote:
you just babble that everything in science is a theory.

It is. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more. That's it. That's all.
Swan wrote:
The fact is that everything in theoretical physics is speculative, which is why you cannot claim that relativity is fact.

Learn what 'fact' means. It does NOT mean 'proof' or 'Universal Truth'. Redefinition fallacy (fact<->proof, theory<->speculation).
Swan wrote:
However the trajectory of a rocket or missile can be calculated to the exact place of impact and it can be known exactly how much fuel will be needed and what speeds will be achieved because aeronautical science is not speculative but factual.

Define 'exact'.


In other words when you cannot form a rebuttal you just babble that everything in science is a theory. The fact is that everything in theoretical physics is speculative, which is why you cannot claim that relativity is fact. However the trajectory of a rocket or missile can be calculated to the exact place of impact and it can be known exactly how much fuel will be needed and what speeds will be achieved because aeronautical science is not speculative but factual.

You may now continue wanking


If you need words defined try a dictionary


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
28-10-2022 21:16
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(891)
http://www.alternativephysics.org/comedy/SolveTwinsParadox.htm

How to spot a relativist
28-10-2022 22:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually the farthest points of the visible universe are traveling at 5 times light speed says NASA.

Now it's a question of whether you believe it, or whether you call boooolsch't.

Swan wrote: One theory is that they are not being fueled by the big bang or this universe at all but that there is an attractive force from outside the universe pulling on the mass, instead of gravity from this universe pushing it away.

Another theory is that there isn't any matter anywhere moving faster than light.

Swan wrote: Not saying that I agree with this, but Einstein would have no clue as he actually claimed that the universe was not expanding at all, being the buffoon that he was and too dumb to comb his hair and all.

The bottom line is that what Einstein claimed is contained in General Relativity, and you don't really understand it. Einstein postulated a particularly non-intuitive model of the universe and nobody has found an example that shows Relativity to be false. Einstein did not deny that planets are moving or the general red shift of celestial bodies. You would do well to get a better grasp of the theory.


LOL the funny thing about relativity is that with millions of physics grads like you all working together, that none of them or the sum of all of them combined can prove relativity, so it remains a theory.

It is not possible to prove a theory True. Science has no proofs.
Swan wrote:
Furthermore, whether matter is speeding faster than light is irrelevant because galaxies are speeding away at an ever-increasing speed meaning that the big bang and gravity cannot be the cause.

You can't see all galaxies.
Swan wrote:
This is why dark matter is speculated, theory number 2 needed to validate theory number 1. So here it is in a nutshell, the theory says. Gravity and matter are pushing themselves apart, but there is 85 percent less matter than needed for this, the math dictates this and math is never wrong, so now we theorize dark matter to fill the void, but the dark matter needs to be 85 percent more than all the matter in the universe, and it's all invisible.

What is 85% of infinity?


Not 85 percent of infinity, it is 85 percent more known mass to create the forces needed to expand the universe

What is 85% of infinity. How can you expand infinity?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-10-2022 22:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Xadoman wrote:
IBdamann, please go and read the link I posted. You do not apparently know how GPS works and you have been brainwashed by mainstream "experts and authorothies".

Here it is again.

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm


IBdaMann , it is time to come fully home. Most of that they have been feeding you is bs.


Still going to chase your bad math and deny theories of science, eh?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-10-2022 22:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:LOL the funny thing about relativity is that with millions of physics grads like you all working together, that none of them or the sum of all of them combined can prove relativity, so it remains a theory.

LOL. LOL. Yawn. Too funny. This goes back to your sluggishness in the uptake. You just described all of science. It's all just a collection of models/theories that cannot be proved/confirmed.

What sets science apart from other theories and models is the characteristic of falsifiability and the survival of the scientific method. You keep avoiding this point. General Relativity is a falsifiable model that predicts nature, and it has, thus far, survived the scientific method, i.e. no one can show it to be false.

You keep mentioning that General Relativity is a theory. Yes. Well done. Kudos.

You keep mentioning that General Relativity has not been proved/confirmed. Correct. Nothing in science has.

You keep avoiding General Relativity's falsifiability. That kills your position. You keep trying to hide the fact that you have never shown it to be false. That chops your argument off at the knees.

Swan wrote: Furthermore, whether matter is speeding faster than light is irrelevant

Moments ago, it was the entire basis for your argument.

Swan wrote:... because galaxies are speeding away at an ever-increasing speed

Why should any rational adult believe that?

Swan wrote: ... meaning that the big bang and gravity cannot be the cause.

No cause is required for something that does not exist.

I have a better idea. Let's just claim that quantum computing is the cause and just call it a moraine.

Swan wrote: This is why dark matter is speculated,

I don't speculate it.

Swan wrote:So here it is in a nutshell, the theory says. Gravity and matter are pushing themselves apart,

Nope. You should have called booooooooooooooooooooolsch't.

Swan wrote: but there is 85 percent less matter than needed for this,

Standard subjunctive error. The universe does not somehow contain only 15% of what it otherwise should contain. There is no "should" in science.

Swan wrote: the math dictates this and math is never wrong,

There is no "The Math" that shows this.

Swan wrote: so now we theorize dark matter to fill the void,

You need to be careful whenever you use the Marxist "we." Science and scientific illiteracy don't mix very well.

.


In other words when you cannot form a rebuttal

He's not trying to argue that science is not a set of theories.
Swan wrote:
you just babble that everything in science is a theory.

It is. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Nothing more. That's it. That's all.
Swan wrote:
The fact is that everything in theoretical physics is speculative, which is why you cannot claim that relativity is fact.

Learn what 'fact' means. It does NOT mean 'proof' or 'Universal Truth'. Redefinition fallacy (fact<->proof, theory<->speculation).
Swan wrote:
However the trajectory of a rocket or missile can be calculated to the exact place of impact and it can be known exactly how much fuel will be needed and what speeds will be achieved because aeronautical science is not speculative but factual.

Define 'exact'.


In other words when you cannot form a rebuttal you just babble that everything in science is a theory. The fact is that everything in theoretical physics is speculative, which is why you cannot claim that relativity is fact. However the trajectory of a rocket or missile can be calculated to the exact place of impact and it can be known exactly how much fuel will be needed and what speeds will be achieved because aeronautical science is not speculative but factual.

You may now continue wanking

Repetition (chanting).
Swan wrote:
If you need words defined try a dictionary

Dictionaries don't define words.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-10-2022 22:59
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually the farthest points of the visible universe are traveling at 5 times light speed says NASA.

Now it's a question of whether you believe it, or whether you call boooolsch't.

Swan wrote: One theory is that they are not being fueled by the big bang or this universe at all but that there is an attractive force from outside the universe pulling on the mass, instead of gravity from this universe pushing it away.

Another theory is that there isn't any matter anywhere moving faster than light.

Swan wrote: Not saying that I agree with this, but Einstein would have no clue as he actually claimed that the universe was not expanding at all, being the buffoon that he was and too dumb to comb his hair and all.

The bottom line is that what Einstein claimed is contained in General Relativity, and you don't really understand it. Einstein postulated a particularly non-intuitive model of the universe and nobody has found an example that shows Relativity to be false. Einstein did not deny that planets are moving or the general red shift of celestial bodies. You would do well to get a better grasp of the theory.


LOL the funny thing about relativity is that with millions of physics grads like you all working together, that none of them or the sum of all of them combined can prove relativity, so it remains a theory.

It is not possible to prove a theory True. Science has no proofs.
Swan wrote:
Furthermore, whether matter is speeding faster than light is irrelevant because galaxies are speeding away at an ever-increasing speed meaning that the big bang and gravity cannot be the cause.

You can't see all galaxies.
Swan wrote:
This is why dark matter is speculated, theory number 2 needed to validate theory number 1. So here it is in a nutshell, the theory says. Gravity and matter are pushing themselves apart, but there is 85 percent less matter than needed for this, the math dictates this and math is never wrong, so now we theorize dark matter to fill the void, but the dark matter needs to be 85 percent more than all the matter in the universe, and it's all invisible.

What is 85% of infinity?


Not 85 percent of infinity, it is 85 percent more known mass to create the forces needed to expand the universe

What is 85% of infinity. How can you expand infinity?


Simple because the visible universe that is expanding is not infinite, and according to relativity this visible universe lacks 85 percent of the mass needed to be moving as it is.

The truly infinite thing is your trollish stupidity


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
29-10-2022 01:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Xadoman wrote:IBdamann, please go and read the link I posted.

Nope. Please read the posts that I wrote. I clearly explained to you what you need to do.


Xadoman wrote: You do not apparently know how GPS works

I explained it in a previous post that you apparently didn't read. Go back and read it and let me know if you have any questions.

.
29-10-2022 02:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually the farthest points of the visible universe are traveling at 5 times light speed says NASA.

Now it's a question of whether you believe it, or whether you call boooolsch't.

Swan wrote: One theory is that they are not being fueled by the big bang or this universe at all but that there is an attractive force from outside the universe pulling on the mass, instead of gravity from this universe pushing it away.

Another theory is that there isn't any matter anywhere moving faster than light.

Swan wrote: Not saying that I agree with this, but Einstein would have no clue as he actually claimed that the universe was not expanding at all, being the buffoon that he was and too dumb to comb his hair and all.

The bottom line is that what Einstein claimed is contained in General Relativity, and you don't really understand it. Einstein postulated a particularly non-intuitive model of the universe and nobody has found an example that shows Relativity to be false. Einstein did not deny that planets are moving or the general red shift of celestial bodies. You would do well to get a better grasp of the theory.


LOL the funny thing about relativity is that with millions of physics grads like you all working together, that none of them or the sum of all of them combined can prove relativity, so it remains a theory.

It is not possible to prove a theory True. Science has no proofs.
Swan wrote:
Furthermore, whether matter is speeding faster than light is irrelevant because galaxies are speeding away at an ever-increasing speed meaning that the big bang and gravity cannot be the cause.

You can't see all galaxies.
Swan wrote:
This is why dark matter is speculated, theory number 2 needed to validate theory number 1. So here it is in a nutshell, the theory says. Gravity and matter are pushing themselves apart, but there is 85 percent less matter than needed for this, the math dictates this and math is never wrong, so now we theorize dark matter to fill the void, but the dark matter needs to be 85 percent more than all the matter in the universe, and it's all invisible.

What is 85% of infinity?


Not 85 percent of infinity, it is 85 percent more known mass to create the forces needed to expand the universe

What is 85% of infinity. How can you expand infinity?


Simple because the visible universe that is expanding is not infinite, and according to relativity this visible universe lacks 85 percent of the mass needed to be moving as it is.

The truly infinite thing is your trollish stupidity

There are no walls, dude. What is 85% of infinity?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-10-2022 02:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Swan wrote:according to relativity this visible universe lacks 85 percent of the mass needed to be moving as it is.

Who instructed you to believe that the universe is somehow missing 85% of its mass and who instructed you to believe that General Relativity somehow states this?
29-10-2022 14:17
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(2785)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually the farthest points of the visible universe are traveling at 5 times light speed says NASA.

Now it's a question of whether you believe it, or whether you call boooolsch't.

Swan wrote: One theory is that they are not being fueled by the big bang or this universe at all but that there is an attractive force from outside the universe pulling on the mass, instead of gravity from this universe pushing it away.

Another theory is that there isn't any matter anywhere moving faster than light.

Swan wrote: Not saying that I agree with this, but Einstein would have no clue as he actually claimed that the universe was not expanding at all, being the buffoon that he was and too dumb to comb his hair and all.

The bottom line is that what Einstein claimed is contained in General Relativity, and you don't really understand it. Einstein postulated a particularly non-intuitive model of the universe and nobody has found an example that shows Relativity to be false. Einstein did not deny that planets are moving or the general red shift of celestial bodies. You would do well to get a better grasp of the theory.


LOL the funny thing about relativity is that with millions of physics grads like you all working together, that none of them or the sum of all of them combined can prove relativity, so it remains a theory.

It is not possible to prove a theory True. Science has no proofs.
Swan wrote:
Furthermore, whether matter is speeding faster than light is irrelevant because galaxies are speeding away at an ever-increasing speed meaning that the big bang and gravity cannot be the cause.

You can't see all galaxies.
Swan wrote:
This is why dark matter is speculated, theory number 2 needed to validate theory number 1. So here it is in a nutshell, the theory says. Gravity and matter are pushing themselves apart, but there is 85 percent less matter than needed for this, the math dictates this and math is never wrong, so now we theorize dark matter to fill the void, but the dark matter needs to be 85 percent more than all the matter in the universe, and it's all invisible.

What is 85% of infinity?


Not 85 percent of infinity, it is 85 percent more known mass to create the forces needed to expand the universe

What is 85% of infinity. How can you expand infinity?


Simple because the visible universe that is expanding is not infinite, and according to relativity this visible universe lacks 85 percent of the mass needed to be moving as it is.

The truly infinite thing is your trollish stupidity

There are no walls, dude. What is 85% of infinity?


Again dude, the size of the visible universe is just over 46 billion light years, so it is finite not infinite. Sorry but I cannot reprogram my brain to go in your retarded directions of thought, just as you cannot have an IQ over 90. That said the 85 percent has to do with mass inside of mostly empty space, not the size of that space at all.

Kapish?


According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 29-10-2022 14:24
29-10-2022 20:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:Actually the farthest points of the visible universe are traveling at 5 times light speed says NASA.

Now it's a question of whether you believe it, or whether you call boooolsch't.

Swan wrote: One theory is that they are not being fueled by the big bang or this universe at all but that there is an attractive force from outside the universe pulling on the mass, instead of gravity from this universe pushing it away.

Another theory is that there isn't any matter anywhere moving faster than light.

Swan wrote: Not saying that I agree with this, but Einstein would have no clue as he actually claimed that the universe was not expanding at all, being the buffoon that he was and too dumb to comb his hair and all.

The bottom line is that what Einstein claimed is contained in General Relativity, and you don't really understand it. Einstein postulated a particularly non-intuitive model of the universe and nobody has found an example that shows Relativity to be false. Einstein did not deny that planets are moving or the general red shift of celestial bodies. You would do well to get a better grasp of the theory.


LOL the funny thing about relativity is that with millions of physics grads like you all working together, that none of them or the sum of all of them combined can prove relativity, so it remains a theory.

It is not possible to prove a theory True. Science has no proofs.
Swan wrote:
Furthermore, whether matter is speeding faster than light is irrelevant because galaxies are speeding away at an ever-increasing speed meaning that the big bang and gravity cannot be the cause.

You can't see all galaxies.
Swan wrote:
This is why dark matter is speculated, theory number 2 needed to validate theory number 1. So here it is in a nutshell, the theory says. Gravity and matter are pushing themselves apart, but there is 85 percent less matter than needed for this, the math dictates this and math is never wrong, so now we theorize dark matter to fill the void, but the dark matter needs to be 85 percent more than all the matter in the universe, and it's all invisible.

What is 85% of infinity?


Not 85 percent of infinity, it is 85 percent more known mass to create the forces needed to expand the universe

What is 85% of infinity. How can you expand infinity?


Simple because the visible universe that is expanding is not infinite, and according to relativity this visible universe lacks 85 percent of the mass needed to be moving as it is.

The truly infinite thing is your trollish stupidity

There are no walls, dude. What is 85% of infinity?


Again dude, the size of the visible universe is just over 46 billion light years, so it is finite not infinite. Sorry but I cannot reprogram my brain to go in your retarded directions of thought, just as you cannot have an IQ over 90. That said the 85 percent has to do with mass inside of mostly empty space, not the size of that space at all.

Kapish?

There are no walls.
What is 85% of infinite?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
31-10-2022 16:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Swan wrote:Again dude, the size of the visible universe is just over 46 billion light years

You still have to connect the dots. What is the size of the invisible universe beyond the visible universe? Why should any rational adult believe that the invisible universe beyond the visible universe is not infinite? If you claim some finite length, what is one meter beyond that distance? What is one meter beyond that? ... and beyond that?

... and why do you believe in all this "missing 85% matter" business? What is this "The Math" of which you speak?

.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-11-2022 13:32
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(891)
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.

Nikola Tesla"
01-11-2022 14:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Xadoman posted: "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. Nikola Tesla"

Question: What did Nikola Tesla never provide?
Answer: any sort of falsifying example to General Relativity

Question: What has humanity never discovered?
Answer: any sort of falsifying example to General Relativity
01-11-2022 17:24
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(891)
IBdaMann wrote:
Xadoman posted: "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. Nikola Tesla"

Question: What did Nikola Tesla never provide?
Answer: any sort of falsifying example to General Relativity

Question: What has humanity never discovered?
Answer: any sort of falsifying example to General Relativity



"The majority believes that everything hard to comprehend must be very profound. This is incorrect. What is hard to understand is what is immature, unclear and often false. The highest wisdom is simple and passes through the brain directly into the heart."
― Viktor Schauberger
01-11-2022 18:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Xadoman quoted Viktor Schauberger:"The majority believes that everything hard to comprehend must be very profound. This is incorrect. What is hard to understand is what is immature, unclear and often false. The highest wisdom is simple and passes through the brain directly into the heart."

Quoting dead people does not suffice for an argument.

Viktor Schauberger never found any flaws in General Relativity, by the way.
01-11-2022 19:36
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(891)
If you put an atomic clock on the hill it will speed up.
If you put a pendulum clock on the hill it will slow down.

According to relativists it is time dilation. Uups , another paradox, clock rates move opposite direction.

How come that rational persons still belive in the bllshit of time dilation and space contraction?

It seems that the brainwashing is too strong from mainstream.
02-11-2022 15:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Xadoman wrote:If you put an atomic clock on the hill it will speed up.

The atomic clock itself will not operate differently. You are recognizing that time will pass more quickly in the atomic clock's new inertial frame of reference.

You just acknowledged time dilation. Thank you.

Xadoman wrote:If you put a pendulum clock on the hill it will slow down.

If you change the gravity driving a gravity-driven device, the device will need to be adjusted to account for the differing gravity.

However, any such adjustment will need to take into account the new rate of time passage in the new inertial frame of reference.

Xadoman wrote:According to relativists it is time dilation.

According to science deniers, the time dilation they acknowledge and reference somehow does not exist.

Xadoman wrote: Uups , another paradox, clock rates move opposite direction.

Not a contradiction. Clocks are mechanical devices and can have error, either being too fast or too slow.

You will acknowledge, I suppose, that among three clocks of the same make and model, one can be running a bit fast, one a bit slow and one can be spot one.

Say it with me: "mechanical devices"

Xadoman wrote:How come that rational persons still belive in the bllshit of time dilation and space contraction?

Why do time dilation deniers nonetheless acknowledge time dilation, and accurately use atomic clock examples?

It seems that the brainwashing is too strong amongst the science deniers.

.
02-11-2022 20:50
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(891)
The atomic clock itself will not operate differently. You are recognizing that time will pass more quickly in the atomic clock's new inertial frame of reference.

You just acknowledged time dilation. Thank you.


There is no such thing as time dilation. The pendulum clock also does not operate differently.

If you change the gravity driving a gravity-driven device, the device will need to be adjusted to account for the differing gravity.

However, any such adjustment will need to take into account the new rate of time passage in the new inertial frame of reference.


Changing the temperature of an atomic clock will change its rate of ticking. It is no time dilation.

According to science deniers, the time dilation they acknowledge and reference somehow does not exist.


There is no time dilation. Clock rate change is not a proof of time dilation.

Not a contradiction. Clocks are mechanical devices and can have error, either being too fast or too slow.

You will acknowledge, I suppose, that among three clocks of the same make and model, one can be running a bit fast, one a bit slow and one can be spot one.

Say it with me: "mechanical devices"



That is what I have been telling you all the time.

Why do time dilation deniers nonetheless acknowledge time dilation, and accurately use atomic clock examples?

It seems that the brainwashing is too strong amongst the science deniers.


We do not aknowledge time dilation. Time dilation and space contraction are fairy tales.



Again, most of what we have been told by mainstream is wrong.
03-11-2022 05:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
Xadoman wrote:
IBDaMann wrote: The atomic clock itself will not operate differently. You are recognizing that time will pass more quickly in the atomic clock's new inertial frame of reference.

You just acknowledged time dilation. Thank you.
There is no such thing as time dilation.

You just acknowledged it. You noted the perceived "speed up" of the atomic clock which isn't working any differently but rather is simply in a different inertial frame of reference. Thank you.

Xadoman wrote:The pendulum clock also does not operate differently.

Sure it does. The pendulum clock is a gravity-driven device ... or do you deny this? You are decreasing the gravity under which the pendulum clock operates ... or are you denying this? Of course the pendulum clock will operate differently.

Xadoman wrote:Changing the temperature of an atomic clock will change its rate of ticking.

Temperature does not determine an inertial frame of reference.

Xadoman wrote:There is no time dilation.

You acknowledged it. You noted the perceived "speed up" of the atomic clock which isn't working any differently but rather is simply in a different inertial frame of reference. Thank you.

Xadoman wrote:Clock rate change is not a proof of time dilation.

There are no proofs in science.

Time passing at a different rate in one inertial frame of reference vs another inertial frame of reference is all the verification of time dilation that is needed. To that point, have you ever heard of GPS? Oh, that's right, you deny that the GPS constellation works as it does. Nevermind.

Xadoman wrote:
IBDaMann wrote: Why do time dilation deniers nonetheless acknowledge time dilation, and accurately use atomic clock examples?

It seems that the brainwashing is too strong amongst the science deniers.
We do not aknowledge time dilation.

... except that you acknowledged time dilation using an atomic clock example.

Xadoman wrote:Again, most of what we have been told by mainstream is wrong.

I notice that you used the word "mainstream." That word does not apply to science, but rather to religion. I think I now understand your brainwashing/indoctrination.

Science denial is part of your religion. Is this the same congregation that ordered you to gift your money to Safemoon? I was going to mention that your choices in religion aren't any better than your financial choices ... but now I believe your religious decisions govern your financial decisions.
03-11-2022 10:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19854)
Xadoman wrote:
The atomic clock itself will not operate differently. You are recognizing that time will pass more quickly in the atomic clock's new inertial frame of reference.

You just acknowledged time dilation. Thank you.


There is no such thing as time dilation. The pendulum clock also does not operate differently.

If you change the gravity driving a gravity-driven device, the device will need to be adjusted to account for the differing gravity.

However, any such adjustment will need to take into account the new rate of time passage in the new inertial frame of reference.


Changing the temperature of an atomic clock will change its rate of ticking. It is no time dilation.

According to science deniers, the time dilation they acknowledge and reference somehow does not exist.


There is no time dilation. Clock rate change is not a proof of time dilation.

Not a contradiction. Clocks are mechanical devices and can have error, either being too fast or too slow.

You will acknowledge, I suppose, that among three clocks of the same make and model, one can be running a bit fast, one a bit slow and one can be spot one.

Say it with me: "mechanical devices"



That is what I have been telling you all the time.

Why do time dilation deniers nonetheless acknowledge time dilation, and accurately use atomic clock examples?

It seems that the brainwashing is too strong amongst the science deniers.


We do not aknowledge time dilation. Time dilation and space contraction are fairy tales.



Again, most of what we have been told by mainstream is wrong.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-11-2022 16:46
James_
★★★★☆
(1150)
Into the Night wrote:

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.



I actually believe the egg came first. The amoeba was the original embryo. And then it developed an exoskeleton (egg shell) before the amoeba (embryo) outgrew that.
What I really believe is that the shell was created to protect the mother from the parasite living inside of the host. The body did not know that it created the parasite so the body's autoimmune system used white blood cells which then used
something like calcium to create a barrier to prevent a spread of the parasite.

Examples that support such a hypothesis would be IBDM and ITN. Did intelligence create life or did life create logic?
Edited on 03-11-2022 16:51
03-11-2022 19:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(13031)
James_ wrote: I actually believe the egg came first.

Wrong! It was a trick question. The egg shell came first. Well, the moraine actually came first, but that goes without saying.

James_ wrote: The amoeba was the original embryo.

Was it the original embryo or was it the original zygote?

James_ wrote:And then it developed an exoskeleton (egg shell) before the amoeba (embryo) outgrew that.

I don't think amoeba's have exoskeletons, but we should ask Swan if they have microclimates.
Page 8 of 8<<<678





Join the debate Relativity theory:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Consciousness.8918-05-2022 18:19
Grand Unified Theory3212-05-2022 19:54
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N252624-01-2020 06:17
Theory About Impeachment Proceedings8404-01-2020 13:13
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy2422-09-2019 22:20
Articles
Theory
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact