Originally posted by leonheartmm
^the gravitational field would have to have an origin{which it doesnt} and itss effects like gravitational lensing would have to be observable{which they arent}
>>You're joking, right? I mean, you can't possibly be as stupid as you sound here, can you? The origin of every gravitational field is the same thing, mass. There is precisely the same amount of mass in a geocentric universe, as in an heliocentric universe. Whatever gravitational lensing we see in an acentric universe, we see in a geocentric universe. Needless to say, to talk about gravitational lensing as somehow relevant to the question at hand, when your own team waves its hand to invent 96% of the mass in this Universe out of thin air (cold dark matter) is a wonderful example of theological double-talk masquerading as scientific argumentation. In your instant case, neither the theology, nor the science, is compelling in the slightest degree.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
and it would have to violate the inverse square law{which we dont see it do, seeing as it doesnt even exist and what does exist doesnt violate the law},
>>I suppose it wouldn't make a difference if I asked you to show why it violates the inverse square law, would it? Please keep in mind while framing your answer how we calculate the inverse square law for the 96% of the universe your team can't seem to find (cold dark matter),
Good luck with that, :-)
Originally posted by leonheartmm
it would also have to be non uniformly distributed seeing as it doesnt just pull every non uniform formation of matter in the universe into the direction of earth,
>>Go look up "gyroscope" and "barycenter". Notice that even if the mass is not evenly distributed in the first, the second is not affected.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
and its source would be larger than all the black holes of the universe combined,
>>Do you have any kind of evidence for this?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
hence it would be asuper blackhole EXACTLY where earth was{even taking out the non uniform aspect} and we wudnt exist as a result.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
also, why is it, that trans shies away from providing evidence for such gravitational anomolies when he HIMSELF brought up the argument that super luminal speeds can exist inside gravitational field{and this was to rebut the previous point against reletivity making such speeds impossible}
>>There is no question that gravitational fields make superluminality possible under Relativity. Einstein has already told you so seven times. Any physics course incorporating basic relativity will provide you with that evidence. But it will do you no good, since Einstein himself has told you seven times and you still do not hear him.
"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
Originally posted by leonheartmm
and instead brings in an ETHER type substance which DRAGS the contents of the universe like a sphere with the earth as its centre. forgetting that if infact the whole universe were part of such an ether, no resulting circular motion would be OBSERVED "inside" the universe.
>>Except of course at its barycenter :-)
Originally posted by leonheartmm
furthermore, he seems to have a lot of psuedo evidence AGAINST the presumptions by science{oddly, claiming to COMPLETELY destroy reletivity and einstien when it suits his needs, but taking FROM reletivity when his arguments desire it}
>>Realtivity is your religion, not mine. Turns out you don't know your faith very well, but that's OK. I do :-)
Originally posted by leonheartmm
but none to actually give ANY hint that HIS vastly unlikely {forgetting contradictions} version of events transpires in any way shape or form{still waiting on the explanation of gravitional anomolies which allow super luminal speeds.
>>But of course, you simply ignore the evidence from ArXiv and the GPS researchers.
That's OK with me.
You still have yet to post one scientific reference (you can't, because your arguments are completely laughable and made up out of thin air), and you have yet to address any of the references I have posted.
This makes you, from this point forward, a member of the peanut gallery, pending a hoped-for, if unexpected, turnabout.
Cheers!
You're joking, right? I mean, you can't possibly be as stupid as you sound here, can you? The origin of every gravitational field is the same thing, mass. There is precisely the same amount of mass in a geocentric universe, as in an heliocentric universe. Whatever gravitational lensing we see in an acentric universe, we see in a geocentric universe. Needless to say, to talk about gravitational lensing as somehow relevant to the question at hand, when your own team waves its hand to invent 96% of the mass in this Universe out of thin air (cold dark matter) is a wonderful example of theological double-talk masquerading as scientific argumentation. In your instant case, neither the theology, nor the science, is compelling in the slightest degree.
is that the best you can do mr zealot??? 😆
neither the mass in he geocentric nor the mass in the heiocentric universe can compensate fot the amount of mass required at the centr of the universe to creat gravitational fields strong enough to provide enough of a gravitational well to compensate for the superluminal veolcities of the universe orbitting the earth, that is fact. the gravitational lensing seen woul be ENORMOUS due to this huge gravitational field that you are proposing{really are you an IDIOT or is it that you dont even have the knowhow to calculate the field strength of a field which can provide near event horizon like conditions BILLIONS of lightyears away from its centre, i.e. the earth}. it doesnt INVENT 96% of the mass in the universe, it hypothesizes that dark matter COULD be upto 96% of the mass of the universe. get your facts straight. but all that aside, such a strong gravitational field would require enough mass at the place where earth is right now to create a superblackhole. also, the gravitational constant makes it impossiblebased on the inverse square law to have a field which UNIFORMLY warps space enough to exactly compensate for the superluminal{again varying speeds, higher as the radius increases} of ALL objects in superluminal orbits,. for instant, to provide the necessadry gravitational well to have the right conditions for a galaxy cluster 3 billion light years away to have a superluminal orbit of 24 hours, the blackhole created starting from earth would be so huge that it would spread out far outside into distant galaxies and there WOULD be nothing, no universe etc, other than at the place where the galaxy cluster existed. the only way YOUR hypothesis can come up with a practical solution is to introduce gravitational anomolies TRAVELLERING with each respectuive individual body in the universe without gravitationally affecting any neighbouring bodies and without providing any noticeable gravitaional lensing, needless to say, only a complete idiot like yourself can beleive in the practical application of your simplistic theory.
>>I suppose it wouldn't make a difference if I asked you to show why it violates the inverse square law, would it? Please keep in mind while framing your answer how we calculate the inverse square law for the 96% of the universe your team can't seem to find (cold dark matter),Good luck with that, :-)
read above.
>>Go look up "gyroscope" and "barycenter". Notice that even if the mass is not evenly distributed in the first, the second is not affected.
irrelevant
>>Do you have any kind of evidence for this?
calculate the distance of the furthest observable heavenly bodies. than calculate the amount of mass required to provide required field strength to that distance based on the inverse square law, then see if this mass is above the chandrashkar limit, if it is{and it most definately is by an almost RIDICULOUS amount, i doubt this much mass even exists in the entire universe} then it form a blackhole. that is what you are proposing by your "superluminal speeds are possible in gravitational fields}
>>Wow. And to think Einstein didn't even think of that. You are just scintillating, aren't you? :-)
no, he simply didnt beleive in geocentrism 😆 .
>>There is no question that gravitational fields make superluminality possible under Relativity. Einstein has already told you so seven times. Any physics course incorporating basic relativity will provide you with that evidence. But it will do you no good, since Einstein himself has told you seven times and you still do not hear him.Albert Einstein, "Relativity, the Special and the General Theory" authorized translation by Robert W. Lawson, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1961, p. 85
yes they do. never denied it. read above to see why the practical imposition of such a phenomenon is impossible in geocentrism
>>Except of course at its barycenter :-)
except ofcourse, you dont know what you are talking about again. and for the last time, pick one, is it your barycentre theory or your superluminal speeds in gravitational fields theory. picking each when its suits you and dumping it when it doesnt is only making you look like a manipulative idiot.
>>Realtivity is your religion, not mine. Turns out you don't know your faith very well, but that's OK. I do :-)
we do, you dont. and if it isnt YOUR relegion, then why are YOU trying to find evidence from it to support geocentrism and hypocritically dumping it for an alternate theory when it doesnt support your claim?
>>But of course, you simply ignore the evidence from ArXiv and the GPS researchers.That's OK with me.
You still have yet to post one scientific reference (you can't, because your arguments are completely laughable and made up out of thin air), and you have yet to address any of the references I have posted.
This makes you, from this point forward, a member of the peanut gallery, pending a hoped-for, if unexpected, turnabout.
Cheers!
the way i see it, practically every1 has been laughing at YOUR ever since this thread began. all your references have been adressed and many a times seen to be false and manipulating and misrepresenting of actual science. i guess this really is the way relegions try and gain some ground of respectability these days, by lying. now where did all the FAITH go?
and unless you wanna be banned permanently, you shud watch your tongue kid.
Originally posted by Shakyamunisonnot really. because there isnt any logica, or empirical evidence for a creater or system such as karma. so based on observable facts im right. unless you have ya know seen the stream of life or somethin 😉
chickenlover98 In other words, anyone who criticizes another person for believing in something they cannot prove is a hypocrite.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
not really. because there isnt any logica, or empirical evidence for a creater or system such as karma. so based on observable facts im right. unless you have ya know seen the stream of life or somethin 😉
I'm not talking about me; I'm talking about you. You have things in your life that you believe are true, but you cannot prove them. That is called faith. You believe in science, but science at it's very core is based on faith that the laws of nature that exist here are the same all over the universe. We cannot know that to be true, but we have faith that it is true. How is that faith any better then the faith in a god? You can criticize people for not being logical or believing things that have been proved to be untrue, but to put someone down because they have faith is hypocritical.
Though I'm loathe to enter this thread again I'm confused as to whether it's being proposed the barycentre of the universe is located at or proximal to Earth, but that the Earth still has translational and rotational motion; OR whether it's proposed that the Earth is stationary and the rest of the universe is a large aether sphere and moves around it to account for the observed motion of celestial bodies, and the Earth is unaffected/not part of the aether sphere itself; OR that everything, including Earth, is part of the big rotating aether sphere in which case as noted no movement would be observed. It seems to migrate between them.
This again based on a silly neuroscientist's residual physics knowledge, but even given basic math, anything greater than about 28 AU from the Earth, needs to move at superluminal speeds. If one is to assume a motionless Earth (translational or rotational) sitting in the middle of the rotating aether universe - Neptune is an average of about 30 AU from Earth, so what mass and resultant gravitational field within the solar system can account for its supposed superluminal speed. Alternatively an example I chanced upon was Halley's comet which comes within 1 AU of the Earth, but is maximally greater than 30; what gravitational field accounts for its periodic acceleration back and forth between sub- and superluminal speed?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Though I'm loathe to enter this thread again I'm confused as to whether it's being proposed the barycentre of the universe is located at or proximal to Earth, but that the Earth still has translational and rotational motion; OR whether it's proposed that the Earth is stationary and the rest of the universe is a large aether sphere and moves around it to account for the observed motion of celestial bodies, and the Earth is unaffected/not part of the aether sphere itself; OR that everything, including Earth, is part of the big rotating aether sphere in which case as noted no movement would be observed. It seems to migrate between them.This again based on a silly neuroscientist's residual physics knowledge, but even given basic math, anything greater than about 28 AU from the Earth, needs to move at superluminal speeds. If one is to assume a motionless Earth (translational or rotational) sitting in the middle of the rotating aether universe - Neptune is an average of about 30 AU from Earth, so what mass and resultant gravitational field within the solar system can account for its supposed superluminal speed. Alternatively an example I chanced upon was Halley's comet which comes within 1 AU of the Earth, but is maximally greater than 30; what gravitational field accounts for its periodic acceleration back and forth between sub- and superluminal speed?
its called CREATIONIST RELETIVITY IDIOT! 😆
Originally posted by leonheartmm
quote:
You're joking, right? I mean, you can't possibly be as stupid as you sound here, can you? The origin of every gravitational field is the same thing, mass. There is precisely the same amount of mass in a geocentric universe, as in an heliocentric universe. Whatever gravitational lensing we see in an acentric universe, we see in a geocentric universe. Needless to say, to talk about gravitational lensing as somehow relevant to the question at hand, when your own team waves its hand to invent 96% of the mass in this Universe out of thin air (cold dark matter) is a wonderful example of theological double-talk masquerading as scientific argumentation. In your instant case, neither the theology, nor the science, is compelling in the slightest degree.*****************
is that the best you can do mr zealot???
>>It is certainly more than good enough to expose you.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
neither the mass in he geocentric nor the mass in the heiocentric universe can compensate fot the amount of mass required at the centr of the universe to creat gravitational fields strong enough to provide enough of a gravitational well to compensate for the superluminal veolcities of the universe orbitting the earth, that is fact.
>>That is gibberish.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
quote:>>I suppose it wouldn't make a difference if I asked you to show why it violates the inverse square law, would it? Please keep in mind while framing your answer how we calculate the inverse square law for the 96% of the universe your team can't seem to find (cold dark matter),
Good luck with that, :-)
********************
read above.
>>I have read above. What you have written above is frantic gibberish.
Let us examine a few of these feverish rantings, just enough to establish once again that you are utterly incompetent in the matters of physical science at issue here:
Originally posted by leonheartmm
neither the mass in he geocentric nor the mass in the heiocentric universe can compensate fot the amount of mass required at the centr of the universe to creat gravitational fields strong enough to provide enough of a gravitational well to compensate for the superluminal veolcities of the universe orbitting the earth, that is fact.
>> A gyroscope's barycenter is not a gravitational well, and the barycenter is determined not by the mass at the center, but rather by the center of all of the mass. Since the gravitational fields proceed not from the center of a rotating system, but rather from the rotating masses distant from that center, the superluminal velocities of the universe orbiting the earth are entirely consistent with the Theory of relativity, as Albert Einstein has already told you twelve or thirteen times:
"Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One not need view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K' [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K' [the Earth], whereby K' [the Earth] is treated as being at rest. If Newtonian mechanics disallow such a view, then this could very well be the foundation for the defects of that theory…."
---Albert Einstein, cited in Hans Thirring, "On The Effect of Rotating Distant Masses In Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918
Now here's what you want to be doing, you want to start chanting to yourself, over and over again:
"Distant rotating masses....distant rotating masses....distant rotating masses" every time you start to make a fool out of yourself nattering on about gravity wells and mass at the center of the Universe.
Maybe one or two more attempts to break through before leaving you to your conniption fits, here....................let's see....
Originally posted by leonheartmm
the gravitational lensing seen woul be ENORMOUS due to this huge gravitational field that you are proposing{really are you an IDIOT or is it that you dont even have the knowhow to calculate the field strength of a field which can provide near event horizon like conditions BILLIONS of lightyears away from its centre, i.e. the earth}.
>>The truth, friend, is that rotation is treated as acceleration under GR, and the gravitational field strength in a rotating universe gets stronger the further out you go FROM the barycenter. So your entire objection here is nothing other than the umpteenth example of you not knowing what the heck you are talking about.
Now, Einstein, unlike you, knows what he is talking about, when it comes to Relativity. While you say that only an idiot could construct a Relativistic physics where the Earth is stationary while the Universe rotates, and you waste my time repeating this endlessly through semi-literate iterations of childlike gibberish, Albert Einstein assures us:
"Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One not need view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K' [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K' [the Earth], whereby K' [the Earth] is treated as being at rest. If Newtonian mechanics disallow such a view, then this could very well be the foundation for the defects of that theory…."
---Albert Einstein, cited in Hans Thirring, "On The Effect of Rotating Distant Masses In Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918
Did you get that? Now let's repeat after Uncle Al. shall we?
the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses
the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses
the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses ...........
Just keep it up and call me in the morning, OK?
In the meantime I think I'll just allow the rest of this gibberish to assume its place among the rest of your cold, dark matter.
Cheers!
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>It is certainly more than good enough to expose you.>>That is gibberish.
>>I have read above. What you have written above is frantic gibberish.
Let us examine a few of these feverish rantings, just enough to establish once again that you are utterly incompetent in the matters of physical science at issue here:>> A gyroscope's barycenter is not a gravitational well, and the barycenter is determined not by the mass at the center, but rather by the center of all of the mass. Since the gravitational fields proceed not from the center of a rotating system, but rather from the rotating masses distant from that center, the superluminal velocities of the universe orbiting the earth are entirely consistent with the Theory of relativity, as Albert Einstein has already told you twelve or thirteen times:
---Albert Einstein, cited in Hans Thirring, "On The Effect of [b]Rotating Distant Masses
In Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918Now here's what you want to be doing, you want to start chanting to yourself, over and over again:
"Distant rotating masses....distant rotating masses....distant rotating masses" every time you start to make a fool out of yourself nattering on about gravity wells and mass at the center of the Universe.
Maybe one or two more attempts to break through before leaving you to your conniption fits, here....................let's see....
>>The truth, friend, is that rotation is treated as acceleration under GR, and the gravitational field strength in a rotating universe gets stronger the further out you go FROM the barycenter. So your entire objection here is nothing other than the umpteenth example of you not knowing what the heck you are talking about.
Now, Einstein, unlike you, knows what he is talking about, when it comes to Relativity. While you say that only an idiot could construct a Relativistic physics where the Earth is stationary while the Universe rotates, and you waste my time repeating this endlessly through semi-literate iterations of childlike gibberish, Albert Einstein assures us:
---Albert Einstein, cited in Hans Thirring, "On The Effect of Rotating Distant Masses In Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918
Did you get that? Now let's repeat after Uncle Al. shall we?
the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses
the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses
the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses ...........Just keep it up and call me in the morning, OK?
In the meantime I think I'll just allow the rest of this gibberish to assume its place among the rest of your cold, dark matter.
Cheers! [/B]
LMAO, owned i see. to try to turn the argument on its head you have tried to REWRITE the inverse square law into the direct square law. lmao, EVEN if that absurdity was true, the field still wouuldnt have the exponential strength to account for the superluminal velocities of objects in the universe. anf if it really WERE the direct square law, then objectst even a little bit further from superluminal orbits would be inside blackholes due to the strength of the gravitaional fields, you cant get around this fact irrespective of whether you tun the law on its head, just the placing of the blackhole will be turned opposite, it will still exist. thankyou again for proving that you indeed copy/paste and dont really know WHAT the hell your taling about.
so ill wait for a proper reply, untill that time, well, ill just wait 😉 , {seeing you jump from reletivity and jump back when it suites you is alsp humerous}
Originally posted by leonheartmm
is that the best you can do mr zealot??? 😆
neither the mass in he geocentric nor the mass in the heiocentric universe can compensate fot the amount of mass required at the centr of the universe to creat gravitational fields strong enough to provide enough of a gravitational well to compensate for the superluminal veolcities of the universe orbitting the earth, that is fact. the gravitational lensing seen woul be ENORMOUS due to this huge gravitational field that you are proposing{really are you an IDIOT or is it that you dont even have the knowhow to calculate the field strength of a field which can provide near event horizon like conditions BILLIONS of lightyears away from its centre, i.e. the earth}. it doesnt INVENT 96% of the mass in the universe, it hypothesizes that dark matter COULD be upto 96% of the mass of the universe. get your facts straight. but all that aside, such a strong gravitational field would require enough mass at the place where earth is right now to create a superblackhole. also, the gravitational constant makes it impossiblebased on the inverse square law to have a field which UNIFORMLY warps space enough to exactly compensate for the superluminal{again varying speeds, higher as the radius increases} of ALL objects in superluminal orbits,. for instant, to provide the necessadry gravitational well to have the right conditions for a galaxy cluster 3 billion light years away to have a superluminal orbit of 24 hours, the blackhole created starting from earth would be so huge that it would spread out far outside into distant galaxies and there WOULD be nothing, no universe etc, other than at the place where the galaxy cluster existed. the only way YOUR hypothesis can come up with a practical solution is to introduce gravitational anomolies TRAVELLERING with each respectuive individual body in the universe without gravitationally affecting any neighbouring bodies and without providing any noticeable gravitaional lensing, needless to say, only a complete idiot like yourself can beleive in the practical application of your simplistic theory.read above.
irrelevant
calculate the distance of the furthest observable heavenly bodies. than calculate the amount of mass required to provide required field strength to that distance based on the inverse square law, then see if this mass is above the chandrashkar limit, if it is{and it most definately is by an almost RIDICULOUS amount, i doubt this much mass even exists in the entire universe} then it form a blackhole. that is what you are proposing by your "superluminal speeds are possible in gravitational fields}
no, he simply didnt beleive in geocentrism 😆 .
yes they do. never denied it. read above to see why the practical imposition of such a phenomenon is impossible in geocentrism
except ofcourse, you dont know what you are talking about again. and for the last time, pick one, is it your barycentre theory or your superluminal speeds in gravitational fields theory. picking each when its suits you and dumping it when it doesnt is only making you look like a manipulative idiot.
we do, you dont. and if it isnt YOUR relegion, then why are YOU trying to find evidence from it to support geocentrism and hypocritically dumping it for an alternate theory when it doesnt support your claim?
the way i see it, practically every1 has been laughing at YOUR ever since this thread began. all your references have been adressed and many a times seen to be false and manipulating and misrepresenting of actual science. i guess this really is the way relegions try and gain some ground of respectability these days, by lying. now where did all the FAITH go?
and unless you wanna be banned permanently, you shud watch your tongue kid.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
quote:
You're joking, right? I mean, you can't possibly be as stupid as you sound here, can you? The origin of every gravitational field is the same thing, mass. There is precisely the same amount of mass in a geocentric universe, as in an heliocentric universe. Whatever gravitational lensing we see in an acentric universe, we see in a geocentric universe. Needless to say, to talk about gravitational lensing as somehow relevant to the question at hand, when your own team waves its hand to invent 96% of the mass in this Universe out of thin air (cold dark matter) is a wonderful example of theological double-talk masquerading as scientific argumentation. In your instant case, neither the theology, nor the science, is compelling in the slightest degree.*****************
is that the best you can do mr zealot???
>>It is certainly more than good enough to expose you.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
neither the mass in he geocentric nor the mass in the heiocentric universe can compensate fot the amount of mass required at the centr of the universe to creat gravitational fields strong enough to provide enough of a gravitational well to compensate for the superluminal veolcities of the universe orbitting the earth, that is fact.
>>That is gibberish.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
quote:>>I suppose it wouldn't make a difference if I asked you to show why it violates the inverse square law, would it? Please keep in mind while framing your answer how we calculate the inverse square law for the 96% of the universe your team can't seem to find (cold dark matter),
Good luck with that, :-)
********************
read above.
>>I have read above. What you have written above is frantic gibberish.
Let us examine a few of these feverish rantings, just enough to establish once again that you are utterly incompetent in the matters of physical science at issue here:
[QUOTE=10669193]Originally posted by leonheartmm
neither the mass in he geocentric nor the mass in the heiocentric universe can compensate fot the amount of mass required at the centr of the universe to creat gravitational fields strong enough to provide enough of a gravitational well to compensate for t
Originally posted by leonheartmm
quote:
You're joking, right? I mean, you can't possibly be as stupid as you sound here, can you? The origin of every gravitational field is the same thing, mass. There is precisely the same amount of mass in a geocentric universe, as in an heliocentric universe. Whatever gravitational lensing we see in an acentric universe, we see in a geocentric universe. Needless to say, to talk about gravitational lensing as somehow relevant to the question at hand, when your own team waves its hand to invent 96% of the mass in this Universe out of thin air (cold dark matter) is a wonderful example of theological double-talk masquerading as scientific argumentation. In your instant case, neither the theology, nor the science, is compelling in the slightest degree.*****************
is that the best you can do mr zealot???
>>It is certainly more than good enough to expose you.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
neither the mass in he geocentric nor the mass in the heiocentric universe can compensate fot the amount of mass required at the centr of the universe to creat gravitational fields strong enough to provide enough of a gravitational well to compensate for the superluminal veolcities of the universe orbitting the earth, that is fact.
>>That is gibberish.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
quote:>>I suppose it wouldn't make a difference if I asked you to show why it violates the inverse square law, would it? Please keep in mind while framing your answer how we calculate the inverse square law for the 96% of the universe your team can't seem to find (cold dark matter),
Good luck with that, :-)
********************
read above.
>>I have read above. What you have written above is frantic gibberish.
Let us examine a few of these feverish rantings, just enough to establish once again that you are utterly incompetent in the matters of physical science at issue here:
Originally posted by leonheartmm
neither the mass in he geocentric nor the mass in the heiocentric universe can compensate fot the amount of mass required at the centr of the universe to creat gravitational fields strong enough to provide enough of a gravitational well to compensate for the superluminal veolcities of the universe orbitting the earth, that is fact.
>> A gyroscope's barycenter is not a gravitational well, and the barycenter is determined not by the mass at the center, but rather by the center of all of the mass. Since the gravitational fields proceed not from the center of a
Originally posted by leonheartmm
is that the best you can do mr zealot??? 😆
neither the mass in he geocentric nor the mass in the heiocentric universe can compensate fot the amount of mass required at the centr of the universe to creat gravitational fields strong enough to provide enough of a gravitational well to compensate for the superluminal veolcities of the universe orbitting the earth, that is fact. the gravitational lensing seen woul be ENORMOUS due to this huge gravitational field that you are proposing{really are you an IDIOT or is it that you dont even have the knowhow to calculate the field strength of a field which can provide near event horizon like conditions BILLIONS of lightyears away from its centre, i.e. the earth}. it doesnt INVENT 96% of the mass in the universe, it hypothesizes that dark matter COULD be upto 96% of the mass of the universe. get your facts straight. but all that aside, such a strong gravitational field would require enough mass at the place where earth is right now to create a superblackhole. also, the gravitational constant makes it impossiblebased on the inverse square law to have a field which UNIFORMLY warps space enough to exactly compensate for the superluminal{again varying speeds, higher as the radius increases} of ALL objects in superluminal orbits,. for instant, to provide the necessadry gravitational well to have the right conditions for a galaxy cluster 3 billion light years away to have a superluminal orbit of 24 hours, the blackhole created starting from earth would be so huge that it would spread out far outside into distant galaxies and there WOULD be nothing, no universe etc, other than at the place where the galaxy cluster existed. the only way YOUR hypothesis can come up with a practical solution is to introduce gravitational anomolies TRAVELLERING with each respectuive individual body in the universe without gravitationally affecting any neighbouring bodies and without providing any noticeable gravitaional lensing, needless to say, only a complete idiot like yourself can beleive in the practical application of your simplistic theory.read above.
irrelevant
calculate the distance of the furthest observable heavenly bodies. than calculate the amount of mass required to provide required field strength to that distance based on the inverse square law, then see if this mass is above the chandrashkar limit, if it is{and it most definately is by an almost RIDICULOUS amount, i doubt this much mass even exists in the entire universe} then it form a blackhole. that is what you are proposing by your "superluminal speeds are possible in gravitational fields}
no, he simply didnt beleive in geocentrism 😆 .
yes they do. never denied it. read above to see why the practical imposition of such a phenomenon is impossible in geocentrism
except ofcourse, you dont know what you are talking about again. and for the last time, pick one, is it your barycentre theory or your superluminal speeds in gravitational fields theory. picking each when its suits you and dumping it when it doesnt is only making you look like a manipulative idiot.
we do, you dont. and if it isnt YOUR relegion, then why are YOU trying to find evidence from it to support geocentrism and hypocritically dumping it for an alternate theory when it doesnt support your claim?
the way i see it, practically every1 has been laughing at YOUR ever since this thread began. all your references have been adressed and many a times seen to be false and manipulating and misrepresenting of actual science. i guess this really is the way relegions try and gain some ground of respectability these days, by lying. now where did all the FAITH go?
and unless you wanna be banned permanently, you shud watch your tongue kid.
LMAO, owned i see. to try to turn the argument on its head you have tried to REWRITE the inverse square law into the direct square law. lmao, EVEN if that absurdity was true, the field still wouuldnt have the exponential strength to account for the superluminal velocities of objects in the universe. anf if it really WERE the direct square law, then objectst even a little bit further from superluminal orbits would be inside blackholes due to the strength of the gravitaional fields, you cant get around this fact irrespective of whether you tun the law on its head, just the placing of the blackhole will be turned opposite, it will still exist. thankyou again for proving that you indeed copy/paste and dont really know WHAT the hell your taling about.so ill wait for a proper reply, untill that time, well, ill just wait , {seeing you jump from reletivity and jump back when it suites you is alsp humerous}
rinse and repeat, until the time you decide to address the points. OWNED.