i havebnt seen a single statement posted that says the universe rotates at FTL speeds. all ive seen him say is it rotates around the earth. it doesnt have to move at FTL speeds to rotate around the earth. get ur facts straight.
EDIT: im sry shaky, that was directed at leonheartMM my bad
Gender: Male Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
No problem... However, a galaxy at 13 billion light years away would have to be traveling at what speed in order to orbit the Earth in 24 hours? That is a diameter of 26 billion light years in 24 hours.
sigh, either the earth rotates 360 around its centre or the universe revolves 360 degreas around the earth in ONE day, i.e 24 hours. the speads of even the nearest stars would havce to be greater than lightspeed to make that orbit{since we can calculate the length of the orbit} in 24 hours. my facts are straight.
im really just waiting to see his argument. just for the sake of seeing everyone laugh in his face. because if he is trying to prove FTL speeds then he needs an ether. which is gonna be ****in hilarious
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>Congratulations. We are making progress here, albeit in baby steps.
>>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"?
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:
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.
>>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.
>>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?)
>>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.
but it can be proven, since the rotation of the entire universe in 24 hours is reletevistically impossible. also, the reduction in weight of objects as a result of the centrifugal affect at the equater is evidence enough idiot.
by point i mean spacial coordinate, dumass. and points are 0 dimensional, any real object is 3 dimensional. and please try and EDUCATE the vast majority of the scientific community which wudnt even consider listening to your arguments after they realised you were supporting geocentrism. well OFCOURSE they must all be wrong, right!
wow, you cant even interpret sarcasm.
even the devil can quote scriptures for his own purpose. you take statements out of context, change them and then try and support a theory which the statement had nothing to do wiht in the first place.
weve been over the first one, gravitational fields CAN allow faster than lightspeed travel. but your model requires gravitational anomolies which would be moving in tandum{i.e} beyond lightspeed themselves in the orbit of the said celestial objects which is impossible, not to mention they would be very visible due to the light distortion they would produce{but none are observed, wierd eh} on top of it being a miracle that they wouldnt affect the orbits of other celestial objects due to their strength and numbers{which they DONT}. so there goes your entire psuedo scientific theory. i explained it before, you didnt reply adequately and now you restated your argument like it was never dealt with to begin with. a lot like JIA used to be.
spacetime itself expands in HIGHER dimensions dumass. spacetime IS the object which is exempt from itself. and most scientists are of the oppinion that this universe contains super small and curled up dimensions other than our 4 dimensions. the expansion of the universe is another clue to there being higher dimensions. both time and space are axioms and exist and form a lot of the basis for scientific study.
wait, you cant see the representation of your own stupidity??? lol, ofcourse if you cud to begin with, you wudnt be the idiot that you are now would you?
rotation in so long as its the movement of 0 dimensional points. when these basic points THEMSELVES start to rotate{which points DONT do} THEN there is no reasoning in th world that will compensate for it. points are looked at from the outside, and reletive motion determined. ie. the earth rotated 90 degress. now either a point on earth moved the diamter of earth AWAY from the start it was directly facing before the movement or the star moved the diameted of earth away from the point. no idiot would say that the star rotated 90 degress in a fatser than lightspeed orbit.
not true. other universes also deal VERY much with reletivity. i have given examples before of the twin paradox. basically time dilation is explained through the presence of other universes otherwise many many paradoxes wud remain unsolved. also, the theories do not CONTRADICT each other its more like, we dont know enough about the world as of yet to prefectly reconcile them. they remain true in their respective scales. reletivity for the macrological and quantum mechanics for the micrscopic.
I would be a little more careful about who you go about calling an idiot here, chum. You see, I have already posted the following paper by Einstein eight times on this thread, and it would have helped you avoid the embarrassment of bungling this question if you had taken the time to read the citation before making a horse's ass of yourself above..
Albert Einstein refutes our pseudo-scientific bungler yet again:
---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, if you were simply ignorant- as after all most people in fact are- about the actual content of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, that would be one thing. But people like you, who attack without knowledge, and slander without truth, are very useful examples of a characteristically modern perversion of a true scientific outlook. You could have bothered to read the thread, and could have taken the time to read Einstein's quote, and so avoided the embarrassment of showing yourself to be completely unequipped to address these questions.
But you couldn't be bothered.
It is altogether clear to me that you are unqualified to fruitfully address these questions, unless and until you read the thread up to the point where you so hilariously plopped yourself into the middle of it, and managed to bring foot-in-mouth disease to a whole new level.
Until such time as you acknowledge that you were wrong on the specific point addressed above, I see no point in treating you as anything other than a source of occasional comic relief.
Here's hoping, by the way, that you will take this lesson as an opportunity to tighten up your arguments and bring something substantive to this debate, because all the others have taken their best shot and departed the contest.
I would love to have the debate continue, but only if you stop being stupid.
KMC Community Forums
May 14th, 2008 09:27 PM
