Originally posted by chickenlover98
not really. i have used observational evidence. there is literally 0 evidence for a god or for a karmic system. if you have any id LOVE to examine it
You don't even know what Karma is. 😆 And god all depends on what you are talking about. If you are talking about the god of the bible, then I would agree, but if you are talking about the life energy its self, then I would say the evidence is right in front of you. However, that was never the point. The point, as I have said before, is that some level of faith is required to believe in anything.
Originally posted by Shakyamunisonperhaps but not in the sense of the way you defined the word
You don't even know what Karma is. 😆 And god all depends on what you are talking about. If you are talking about the god of the bible, then I would agree, but if you are talking about the life energy its self, then I would say the evidence is right in front of you. However, that was never the point. The point, as I have said before, is that some level of faith is required to believe in anything.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
is that the best you can do mr zealot???
Hello again, friend. I have been trying to understand you and I think I have come to grasp that you feel threatened here, that your faith is being challenged, and that you are responding in a sort of "let me throw enough dust up into the air here and hopefully I can baffle the peanut gallery enough to at least confuse the issue hopelessly ".
I have decided to look at you as an opportunity to increase my woeful shortcomings in the virtue of patience, and I want to thank you for being really, really good at providing a real challenge in this regard 🙂
Therefore, let me address each and every one of your points, even taking into account that English is obviously not your native tongue (I am sure you speak English far better than I speak whatever it is that your native tongue might be).
I will consider myself successful here if and only if I not only address each of your points (even the really crazy ones), but I do so in a patient and fair minded way (I do reserve the right, of course, to pepper in a few zingers, because after all what the heck else is the point of an internet debate?) 🙂
In the spirit of the grand American pastime which gave us the peanut gallery, I will address your points three at a time, for it's ONE, TWO, THREE STRIKES YOU'RE OUT at the old ballgame 🙂
To business:
Originally posted by leonheartmm
neither the mass in he geocentric nor the mass in the heiocentric universe
>>Since you are about to make a claim about the "impossibility" of the amount of mass in the Universe "compensating" for something, I feel it is important to point out that you have no idea how much mass there is in either a heliocentric or a geocentric universe. No one has ever measured this mass. According to present scientific consensus, an astonishing 96% of the mass hypothesized to exist in this Universe (hypothesized why? Because that is how much mass would have to be present to get the Einstein equations to fit present assumptions and observations), is simply not found by our present sensor technologies.
Needless to say, if a given theory cannot scientifically account for 96% of the mass required for its assumptions to work in practice, we have two possibilities:
1. The theory is, simply, wrong in one or more of its basic assumptions; OR
2. The Universe's total amount of mass is composed 96% of something we have never seen, measured, or detected.
In either case, it is quite clear that neither you, nor anyone else, is presently in a position to assert that "the amount of mass in the Universe" is somehow a known quantity, that can be tossed casually out in a debate as if it were an established scientific fact.
With respect, you cannot legitimately raise an objection to a cosmological hypothesis based upon appeal to a magnitude never experimentally defined.
Strike one.
****************************************************************************************
Originally posted by leonheartmm
can compensate fot the amount of mass required at the center of the universe to creat gravitational fields strong enough
>> Again, you misunderstand. Gravitational fields do not emanate from the "mass at the center". It is a matter of incontestably established physical FACT that the barycenter of any rotating system of masses is that point at which all gravitational fields cancel each other out. I invite you to go and ask your physics professor whether or not this is true. I would similarly invite the fair-minded observer of our debate, who might be attempting to discern the relative merits of our arguments, to do the same.
Anyone who does ask, will see that your objection here is falsified, based upon a failure to understand the following simple law of physics: In any rotating system of masses, the gravitational fields are created by the rotating masses distant from the center, and the total gravitational forces of all such rotating masses cancel out at the center.
Strike two.
*************************************************
Originally posted by leonheartmm
to provide enough of a gravitational well
>>Another misunderstanding. A gravity well is nothing other than the pull of gravity that a body in space exerts. Since in the geocentric system, the entire rotating mass of the Universe, as we have seen, must by the laws of physics create a specific point- the "barycenter"- at which point all gravitational potentials cancel each other out, you again misunderstand. Earth in the geocentric system is at the barycenter of a rotating system of masses. The gravity wells created by each and all of the objects rotating the barycenter, cancel out at that barycenter. Your objection is shown again to stem from a failure to grasp the physical laws pertaining to systems of rotating masses.
We will give you a pass here, since this is just strike two in another form.
*******************************************************************************************
Originally posted by leonheartmm
to compensate for the superluminal veolcities of the universe orbitting the earth, that is fact.
1. Sir Hermann Bondi, "Angular Momentum of Cylindrical Systems in General Relativity Royal Society Proceedings" Series A- Mathematical and Physical Sciences, vol. 446, no. 1926, July 8, 1994, pp. 63-64
In this section of his paper, the world-renowned physicist Bondi specifically refutes your objection above, first by specifically admitting the possibility of a geocentric physics within the framework of General Relativity:
"The main point to note is that whereas in the newtonian, non-rotation of the reference system at infinity is taken for granted, in the relativistic treatment such rotation is permitted, but irrelevant to the measure of angular momentum, which is an intrinsic characteristic of the material system...." (emphasis added).
Two things jump out. First, Bondi again frustrates your attempt to argue that General relativity cannot accomodate a stationary center and a rotating universe. He has just told you, specifically, that you are wrong in that assertion.
Second, he points out that the angular momentum of the rotating universe is irrelevant to that rotation, since the angular momentum is an intrinsic characteristic of the material system. This is precisely what I have stated on several occasions, both to you and to another correspondent, when I pointed out that in the geocentric system it is not necessary at all to assume that the objects rotating Earth have to exceed "c". It is merely the case that the system as a whole is treated as rotating about the barycenter, and the objects are simply carried along in that rotation.
There is much more in the Bondi paper that you would find helpful- specifically, he shows that the effects of all rotating masses beyond the Schwarzkopf radius- that radius beyond which rotation would be superluminal- would not affect the masses inside that radius.
There is much more I could post here, and if necessary I will do so, but for now it is very safe to say that your assertion above is refuted out of the peer-reviewed scientific literature and hence, as they say:
STRIKE THREE YER OUT!
To be continued.................
Back to the old ballgame!
Top of the second inning......
Batter up!
***********************************
Originally posted by leonheartmm
the gravitational lensing seen woul be ENORMOUS due to this huge gravitational field that you are proposing
>>Here again, friend, you misapprehend the basics about the phenomenon you trot out as if it constituted a refutation.
Please click the link below to learn that a gravitational lens in galaxy cluster Abel 1869, discovered in 2004, possesses less than one per cent of the mass required to produce the gravitational lensing effect attributed to it.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap040627.html
Since science presently has no evidence whatsoever- let me say again, science has NO EVIDENCE AT ALL- of precisely what it is that is causing this gravitational lensing- all they know for certain is it cannot possibly be the mass of the object at the focus of the "lens"- it is therefore absurd for you to argue that "gravitational lensing seen would be ENORMOUS". The truth is, you have no evidence whatever to back up this claim.
Obviously, given a rotating universe of the form proposed by Bondi, and covered in my last response to you, the gravitational lensing would not be "ENORMOUS", since, in the rotating shell, the greatest concentration of matter would be at the furthest edge of the distribution, and hence would have no gravitational lensing effect AT ALL on matter closer in to the center- Earth.
Therefore, in the simplest mathematical derivation of a geocentric universe, as developed by Bondi in his 1994 paper, there would be no gravitational lensing attributed to the superluminal rotation beyond the Schwarzchild radius.
Strike One.
******************************************************************************************
Originally posted by leonheartmm
{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}.
>>Now now. No tantrums. Play nice. There are no "near event horizon conditions" hypothesized in Bondi, or in any other Relativistic treatment of a rotating universe. Since you seem to be implying here that you do know how to calculate the field strength necessary to create a black hole billions of light years from earth, I would invite you to do so, right here in front of all of us. I for one would be very impressed if you could.
(This is what is known as calling your bluff ) 🙂
But in no case has anyone posited "near even horizon conditions". As Bondi has already told you, the angular momentum of the masses beyond the Schwarzchild radius would have no effect whatsoever in the inner area. Here is the relevant section, from the original paper referenced in my last response to you:
"For such a cylinder the required angular velocity makes the tangential velocity at r = r2 equal to the speed of light...."
Notice that Bondi is explicitly telling you that everything outside the r2 radius (the Schwarzchild radius) will of necessity have a tangential speed in excess of "c".
He continues- and here is where your notion of "near event horizon conditions" falls apart:
"Both the space drag on the core and A [angular momentum] will be unaffected by such outside layers.....The conservation of A occurs even if gravitational waves are emitted by the cylinder. This is perhaps not surprising, since the cylindrical symmetry of the waves precludes their carrying angular momentum..."
So we see again- the masses rotating outside the Schwarzchild radius do not affect the areas inside that radius, and, as Bondi told us previously, the angular momentum is intrinsic to the system:
"The main point to note is that whereas in the newtonian, non-rotation of the reference system at infinity is taken for granted, in the relativistic treatment such rotation is permitted, but irrelevant to the measure of angular momentum, which is an intrinsic characteristic of the material system...." (emphasis added).
All quotes from Sir Hermann Bondi, "Angular Momentum of Cylindrical Systems in General Relativity Royal Society Proceedings" Series A- Mathematical and Physical Sciences, vol. 446, no. 1926, July 8, 1994, pp. 63-64.
Strike Two.
*************************************************************************************
Originally posted by leonheartmm
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.
>>Well, as long as it is clearly understood that we cannot find 96% of the mass required to make our present consensus-physics work, I won't quibble over whether you want to say the 96% is invented, or hypothesized. In truth, there is no essential difference between the two statements.
What is certainly the case, is that we are far far far far far away from having an adequate understanding of the physical universe, with which to be able to say just what is the source of that missing mass- or even whether it is missing mass at all. It might just as well be a foundational error in the assumptions of the Einstein equations.
You can call it cold dark matter. I can call it the ether. Someone else can call it invisible elephants sucking with their trunks. In the absence of scientific proof, the only way to differentiate between the three hypotheses, is the plug them in and see which most adequately explains observations.
Since we have seen, conclusively, from the very latest scientific observations available to the human race, from WMAP, that the Universe is most certainly not of the form proposed by Standard Model physics (isotropic and homogeneous), it follows that cosmologies which would have predicted this non-homogeneity ought to be moved to the top of the radar screen.
Among these non-homogeneous cosmologies, we notice that geocentrism happens to be in perfect agreement with the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe's scientifically demonstrated proof that the Universe does have a center (this fact directly contradicts the foundational assumptions of Standard Theory, by the way), and happens to be in 99.5% agreement with present scientific estimates of where that center might be- Earth.
It is this kind of predictive power which has always been recognized in scientific research as a powerful and persuasive indicator of truth.
It is also quite amusing to me, that certain supposed defenders of science start foaming at the mouth and chewing the carpets in hysterical rage whenever these facts are brought into public view by a geocentrist. 🙂
Thanks so much for bringing this point up, it is always very useful to recall just how astonishing it is that we cannot presently locate 96% of that Universe our physics teachers confidently assure us has been reduced to a set of manageable equations.
No strike here, so we continue......
************************************************************************************
Originally posted by leonheartmm
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.
>>Again, you are simply in error. In a rotating universe, the barycenter is that point where all the mass of the entire Universe would balance out. It is the exact opposite of what you say. Again, ask your physics teacher whether a rotating Universe would have a black hole at the center, or a barycenter.
It is one hundred per cent certain he will agree with me, and refute your error above.
Strike Three and YER OUT!
To be continued......................
Top of the 3rd.
Batter up!
*******************************************
Originally posted by leonheartmm
also, the gravitational constant makes it impossible based on the inverse square law to have a field which UNIFORMLY warps space
>>Uniformly? Warps space? All that the inverse square law states is that the force of attraction between two bodies falls off as the square of the distance between them. That's all. Many objects travel at very non-uniform rates in our universe, and there is nothing whatever in the inverse square law which prevents this.
Strike One!
Originally posted by leonheartmm
enough to exactly compensate for the superluminal{again varying speeds, higher as the radius increases} of ALL objects in superluminal orbits.
>>The inverse square law allows for superluminal speeds. It also allows for varying superluminal speeds, higher as the radius increases. I have posted peer-reviewed scientific citations dozens of times to this effect. You have posted none, and that, my friend, means....
Strike Two!
*************************************************
Originally posted by leonheartmm
for instant, to provide the necessadry gravitational well
>>There is no gravitational well, but rather a barycenter, which is occupied by Earth. You are simply in error, in failing to grasp the principles of physics involved in a rotating closed universe. I have already provided you with the Bondi reference, to assist you in remedying this shortcoming if you would like.
Since this is about the fourth time you have framed an objection based on this same misunderstanding of the physical principles involved in a geocentric cosmology, I will let this one pass and continue to take your pitches.
***************************************
Originally posted by leonheartmm
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
>>Bzzt. Wrong again. No black hole at earth. Barycenter at earth. The universe is rotating, remember? Therefore the masses of that rotating universe will, by the laws of physics, rotate about one, specific point where all of the various masses are in balance. This is called the barycenter. Ask your physics professor about it.
************************************************************
Originally posted by leonheartmm
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.
>>>Needless to say, things would look pretty bad for the geocentric position right about now, if only there were no such thing as a barycenter, and if only physics were to require, as you hilariously imagine, a black hole to exist where in fact a barycenter must be.
Fortunately for my position, physics is not as you imagine it to be, but is instead possessed of a well-defined concept of a barycenter of rotation, a center of mass. This principle is well known and well defined, as I have said. I invite you to investigate it, so that you can come up with some more challenging objections than these.
STRIKE THREE AND YER OUT!
lol, weak. your ENTIRE argument this time revolves around not answering directly, any reply posted concerning YOUR statements about reletivity and gravitation which adequately debunk your claims. infact ALL you have done is substitute the baricenter model for the gravitational model when the later has been replied to. you reply as if YOUR initial claim {in each part to which i replied} was concerning baricenters, when infact it was NOT{making you a liar} and was concerning gravity acting in ways to make possible superluminal velocities. i could each and every statement, but really, you have proven that you are beyond hope and it would just be a waste of my time. so really, the only thing left for you now is to jump between two models, when one is answered. im afraid this is a very OLD debating tactic on kmc, and most of us are wise to it, {also seeing as you can not even yourself, DESCRIBE what you mean by a baricenter and keep copy pasting from uncontexted articles which answers NOTHING as to the queries raised concernig YOUR meaning of a baricentre} . so in the end the very fact that NO1 here beleives you or pays much attention to your high and mighty babble is perhaps evidence enough{if you rent thick} that your claimed irrefutable/clear/overwhleming/conclusive evidence is nuthing but psuedo science. wisen up my zealot friend.
as for the field strength thing 🙂 thats simple enough, in knwoing the method. you ofcourse with your high and mighty brain would know that calculating field strength for masses is sumthing fairly simple and usually taught in high school/A levels. it isnt rocket science. now, a rather sharp indian dude called chandreshkar came up with the theory , looking at early reletivity etc, that any obeject above a certain mass would have gravitation fields so strong that it would not even let lightspeed particles escape it. hence he theorised, with others, the existance of blackholes, and put a LIMIT on the mass of any body{and the mass was so large that any body in that certain configuration would be a star} before it turned into a blackhole. the ways it took for him to calculate this exact figgure is no doubt very hard and beyond my abilitiy to do so, but the beauty of it is, we arent concerned with HOW he calculated it, just like a highschooler need not be concerned how ANY of the constants in science are concerned. ALL "we" have to do is take the the number from any book and then calculate how much mass the field strengths that make superluminal travel possible at such vast distances from earth, REQUIRE. which can again be done easily enough by the most basic gravitation equations found in any highschool textbooks. and then we see if this mass is above the mass chandrashkar tells us about{now know as the chandraskar limit}. see easy 😛 . oh hey, no no no, all this is obviously WRONG! after all im BLUFFING right? 🙂
have a nice day buddy.
Originally posted by TransfinitumJesus man, your boring 🍺
Top of the 3rd.Batter up!
*******************************************>>Uniformly? Warps space? All that the inverse square law states is that the force of attraction between two bodies falls off as the square of the distance between them. That's all. Many objects travel at very non-uniform rates in our universe, and there is nothing whatever in the inverse square law which prevents this.
Strike One!
>>The inverse square law allows for superluminal speeds. It also allows for varying superluminal speeds, higher as the radius increases. I have posted peer-reviewed scientific citations dozens of times to this effect. You have posted none, and that, my friend, means....
Strike Two!
*************************************************>>There is no gravitational well, but rather a barycenter, which is occupied by Earth. You are simply in error, in failing to grasp the principles of physics involved in a rotating closed universe. I have already provided you with the Bondi reference, to assist you in remedying this shortcoming if you would like.
Since this is about the fourth time you have framed an objection based on this same misunderstanding of the physical principles involved in a geocentric cosmology, I will let this one pass and continue to take your pitches.
***************************************>>Bzzt. Wrong again. No black hole at earth. Barycenter at earth. The universe is rotating, remember? Therefore the masses of that rotating universe will, by the laws of physics, rotate about one, specific point where all of the various masses are in balance. This is called the barycenter. Ask your physics professor about it.
************************************************************>>>Needless to say, things would look pretty bad for the geocentric position right about now, if only there were no such thing as a barycenter, and if only physics were to require, as you hilariously imagine, a black hole to exist where in fact a barycenter must be.
Fortunately for my position, physics is not as you imagine it to be, but is instead possessed of a well-defined concept of a barycenter of rotation, a center of mass. This principle is well known and well defined, as I have said. I invite you to investigate it, so that you can come up with some more challenging objections than these.STRIKE THREE AND YER OUT!