Two Errors In Relativity

a reply to: BakedCrusader

Not angry, just puzzled seeing as relativity has been validated with many experiments and Tesla's opinions on the matter are just wrong.

So yeah, i think Gary Glitter has about as much relevance to the topic as tesla.

a reply to: GetHyped

Gary Glitter wasn't even talking about relativity........

Validated? It's bs piled on bs piled on bs.

a reply to: BakedCrusader

Inform yourself before airing such ignorant opinions:

en.m.wikipedia.org...


en.m.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: GetHyped

Oh I know what is being claimed, that's why I know it is a collection of bs designed to save the heliocentric model.

The bs started after the Michelson/Morley experiment showed that the Earth is stationary.

a reply to: BakedCrusader

>Links to comprehensive sources validating relativity
>Dismisses sources out of hand

Don't be surprised when people don't take you seriously.

a reply to: GetHyped

I didn't dismiss anything out of hand. The problem is that you assume that your information is new to me.

I don't take you seriously, you believe in fairytales.

a reply to: BakedCrusader

You're not fooling anyone.

a reply to: GetHyped

That's right, I am not.

Einstein is.

a reply to: BakedCrusader
Einstein didn't really convince anybody, in fact his ideas were hard for some to believe (like you) so many didn't believe him at first.

What convinced people wasn't Einstein, it was experimental results consistent with his theory, done by other people, not Einstein, that eventually convinced people.

So even if you have a better idea, unless there are even more convincing experimental results supporting it, it makes no difference if you're right or wrong because it's experimental results that are ultimately accepted. We are still waiting for someone to provide a theory that fits the experimental results better than Einstein's, which may happen someday, but I've seen nothing from you in that regard.

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
a reply to: GetHyped

No you are not. Gary Glitter has got nothing to do with the subject. Angry because I mentioned Tesla?

No people that mention Tesla just shows they have bought into psuedo science from some web site. They all mention Tesla trying to seek validation. People like to use him because like most people of that time he was against relativity. In fact in a way so was Einstein as he kept trying to disprove it as well. Problem was experimentally speaking relativity has been proven time and again. but even now people constantly try to disprove it truth is the only way to advnce at this point is to figure out where relativity fails and why.

a reply to: dragonridr

No people that mention Tesla just shows they have bought into psuedo science from some web site.

No, people obviously have some sort of bias against Tesla and get upset when you mention him. What do you mean pseudo science. Tesla was an accomplished physicist and inventor.

I only used the qoute because it applied to the post I responded to.

the only way to advnce at this point is to figure out where relativity fails and why.

I will show you.

a reply to: graysquirrel

Very interesting but why can't we assume all will be constant and conserved within a specified duration or distance?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The Micholson/Morley experiment showed that the Earth is not moving through the aether, and therefore stationary. Einstein then came out with his theories of relativity and ignored the Micholson/Morley experiment, and simply got rid of the aether, causing all sorts of fallacies and contradictions in his theory.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

What experimental results exactly? I can give you a whole list of counterexamples.

If Einstein is anywhere near correct, why do they have to make up stuff like Dark Matter and Dark Energy to account for 95% of the energy and 85% of the matter that is missing from reality?

The standard model of cosmology indicates that the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[4][5][6][7] Thus, dark matter constitutes 84.5%[note 1] of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of total mass–energy content.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: graysquirrel

Very interesting but why can't we assume all will be constant and conserved within a specified duration or distance?

I'm quite sure that there are many real and conceptual situations where this can be assumed.

Einstein:

“I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment

So what is left? The laughable Foucault's Pendulum sideshow? The observations that are explained by the hilarious Coriolis Effect which contradicts and debunks itself out of the gate?

You can't detect something that is non-existant.

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What experimental results exactly? I can give you a whole list of counterexamples.

If Einstein is anywhere near correct, why do they have to make up stuff like Dark Matter and Dark Energy to account for 95% of the energy and 85% of the matter that is missing from reality?

The standard model of cosmology indicates that the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[4][5][6][7] Thus, dark matter constitutes 84.5%[note 1] of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of total mass–energy content.

We don't know what dark matter is but that doesn't mean relativity is wrong. One thing we do know for sure is that things that are far away are really hard to see/detect, so that surely accounts for some of the matter gap. We also know that most neutrinos pass right through the Earth without interacting with it while many other particles can't even penetrate the atmosphere much less the Earth so there is a wide range of interactions of known particles, and it would be arrogant to expect that this known range is all there is, which would assume we know everything which we don't. There could be particles with interaction profiles outside the range we know to account for some observations which doesn't disprove relativity, it just means that we are trying to detect some particles that are even harder to detect than neutrinos which are already very hard to detect.

Einstein had a cosmological constant in his relativity equation which we think correlates to dark energy so you can't say dark energy disproves relativity. We can't say why that has the value it does, but we can't explain why many constants in nature have the values they do.

Here are references to just some of the relativity experiments:

Tests of special relativity

Special relativity is a physical theory that plays a fundamental role in the description of all physical phenomena, as long as gravitation is not significant. Many experiments played (and still play) an important role in its development and justification. The strength of the theory lies in its unique ability to correctly predict to high precision the outcome of an extremely diverse range of experiments. Repeats of many of those experiments are still being conducted with steadily increased precision, with modern experiments focusing on effects such as at the Planck scale and in the neutrino sector. Their results are consistent with the predictions of special relativity.

Tests of General relativity

Nearly a hundred years after it was first published, Einstein's theory of relativity has held up to rigorous scientific testing. And the tests keep coming. Here are five recent tests of theory. Yes, it still holds up.

Relativity does have some issues in extreme conditions so we'd love to have a better theory which doesn't have those issues, but so far nobody has come up with a theory which matches experiments better than relativity, and certainly not Tesla who was a failure as a physicist and was proven to be very wrong regarding his physics concepts, so as dragonridr said that does tend to portray people who bring up Tesla in physics discussions as cranks. For example he thought the atom couldn't be split which means we would have no nuclear power or nuclear bombs on Nagasaki or Hiroshima:

Nikola Tesla

Tesla exhibited a pre-atomic understanding of physics in his writings; he disagreed with the theory of atoms being composed of smaller subatomic particles, stating there was no such thing as an electron creating an electric charge (he believed that if electrons existed at all, they were some fourth state of matter or "sub-atom" that could only exist in an experimental vacuum and that they had nothing to do with electricity). Tesla believed that atoms are immutable—they could not change state or be split in any way. He was a believer in the 19th century concept of an all pervasive "ether" that transmitted electrical energy.]

Tesla was generally antagonistic towards theories about the conversion of matter into energy.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

We don't know what dark matter is but that doesn't mean relativity is wrong.

We don't just "not know" what Dark Matter is, there is no evidence of its existence whatsoever. It's nothing but fantasy, made up to save a model that has unbelievably huge gaps in it and was flawed from the get go.

If you have to make up stuff to account for a 95% error, your model is wrong.

I'll respond to the rest of your post later.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Einstein had a cosmological constant in his relativity equation which we think correlates to dark energy

Einstein is said to later have called the cosmological constant "the biggest blunder" of his life, but off course that too is now validated by the fantasy of Dark Energy.

originally posted by: BakedCrusader
a reply to: Arbitrageur

What experimental results exactly? I can give you a whole list of counterexamples.

If Einstein is anywhere near correct, why do they have to make up stuff like Dark Matter and Dark Energy to account for 95% of the energy and 85% of the matter that is missing from reality?

The standard model of cosmology indicates that the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy.[4][5][6][7] Thus, dark matter constitutes 84.5%[note 1] of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of total mass–energy content.

Funny thing, With Graysquirrel general relativity, The amount of both matter and energy will go up.