Transfinitum
Angelus Domine Nuntiavit
Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes. he tried to give evidence for it being possible, but it isnt. reletive MOTION is possible but the rotational property of earth makes it unviable to being the centre of the universe.
>>The above gibberish is refuted by the simple truth that he cannot prove the rotational motion of the earth. As has been covered extensively in this thread, no experiment has ever been able to detect a motion of the Earth. It was the failure of all such attempted experiments, that led to the advancement of relativity in the first place.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
any POINT can be considered the centre of the universe
>>Neither does a point have extension, weight, mass, or any other physical existence. It is a mathematical construct. However, an object can occupy space at the same coordinate as a point. And that object, of course, could then be considered to occupy the center of the Universe. If the individual posting here had bothered to read the thread, he would have already been educated by Tomozawa, whose February 2008 paper on ArXiv is a mathematical proof that such a center MUST EXIST in the Universe of Standard Theory. Apparently the individual posting here is significantly challenged when it comes to reading English. But then again he is also significantly challenged when it comes to writing it.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
and according to trans, the earth is the stationary frame of reference therefore, it is the entire UNIVERSE which revolved around the earth.
>>Congratulations. We are making progress here, albeit in baby steps.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
and he further tried to prove faster than lightspeed orbital speed of the resultant celestial masses by posting psuedo scientific babble
>>The "psuedoscientific babble of so and so"???? My, my. Now who do you suppose is going to turn out to be the pseudo-scientific babbler here, chum? You, or the senior lecturer in physics at Exeter University, and author of the internationally distributed scientific text "An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity"?
"If gravitational fields are present the velocity either material bodies or of light can achieve any numerical value whatever depending on the strength of the gravitational field."
Rosser, op cit, p.460
Now you can read it and you can weep, chum, but you sure as shootin' can't refute it, now can you? :-)
And just in case you needed some more evidence of your personal psuedo-scientific status as a babbler, here is Albert Einstein to straighten you out further on the question:
"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions of the theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position.....the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g., of light) ."
Albert Einstein, "Relativity, the Special and the General Theory" authorized translation by Robert W. Lawson, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1961, p. 85
I am sure we are all waiting with baited breath to see how you will crush these pseudo-scientific babblers Doctor Einstein and Doctor Rosen.
Good luck with that.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
also mistakenly pointing to the expansion of the universe having faster than lightspeed, {forgetting that even if the example WERE true in the sense he posted, he still hadnt made even a WILD connection with the theory he was proposing} but forgetting that lightspeed refers to objects INSIDE space and time, and not space time ITSELF in higher dimensions. his stratergy is this..
>>Since you assume at least four things never demonstrated to exist scientifically:
1. Objects OUTSIDE of space and time
2. Space "itself"
3. Time "itself"
4. Spacetime "itself"
5. "Higher dimensions"
It is clear we are back at that pseudo-scientific babbler stage I had hoped you were taking baby steps away from.
Ah, well. I have nothing whatever to say about your white holes, your string universes, your higher dimensions of negative space time, or your related and associated metaphysical fantasies.
I merely point out that not a single one of them has been shown to exist.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
a: this line is continuous, see it has no discontinuous points
trans: no you see, i dont have faith in that, and i will further elaborate{with flawed psuedological examples} how such and such great mathematician proved that lines COULD be{doesnt explain the connection between those exceptions and how THIS specific line in question is part of those few exceptions} in very rare cases discontinuous but look to the observer to be continuous.
a: so how does that flawed example{even taken at face value} translate to THIS specific line being discontinuous?
trans: your so stupid liar, my logic and intelligence is superior to yours, if you cant understand that its discountinuous than its your own fault.
trans 1, wrest of the scientific world 0 , yayy.
but a point doesnt rotate.
>>Umm. Yay. I guess. Go team. You scored a touchdown here, big fella. Wow.
(Can ANYONE out there translate this guy's above glob of gibberish for me?)
Originally posted by leonheartmm
he actually treid befoe by quoting an apparent scientist who said that reletivistically it is straight away possible. ofcourse it isnt since reletivity deals with point sources and reletive velocities which dont ROTATE. its as good as saying, well ill turn my neck 45 degress and i can just as well say that either my head rotated in half a second or all the stars and celestial objects in the sky moved billions upon billions of miles for no apparent reason to make a perfect 45 degree pattern from the exact place where i stand.any1 can tell which is right and which is wrong.
>>General Relativity deals with rotation, chum, and yes. it is actually true that, in order to believe Relativity, you MUST believe that there is NO DIFFERENCE in the physical laws operating in either case- whether the Universe shifts forty five degrees, or whether you shifted your head. Now, since I find that to be rather absurd, I became a geocentrist. I say that there IS a preferred reference frame, and that it is therefore unnecessary to maintain the notion that no such preferred frame exists.
Nice to see that you agree with me.
Baby steps, again.
Cheers!