Bogotanian
I'm sorry,but I had to bold a segment of your speech. If I have been pissing and moaning, what has been your whole chain of replies? You seem to be the one that is angry, not me.
I site proof, you just give out the same tired links and even links that DISPROVE your own statements. As evidenced with one of the last links you gave out. Yeah, I looked up that stuff, guess what? Basically everything I looked up, DISPROVED you. In fact, let me give you a link as to why I always discredit everything you say about Einstein, or just never mention it.
Sites like aether theory dot com I discredit. Also, Einstein himself never seemed to have actually made this theory. Again, discrediting it. It was made up by some guy LONG after Einstein died. Good to know that.
Quote:
Anyways, if you're talking about Failed experiments, I will enlighten you on failed experiments that don't actually prove Relativity. (refer to last OP video for more info)
They sure as hell don't prove the aether. As a matter of fact, every single test done, the only people who say it worked, as those who are actively biased. Like the dudes you mentioned before, the one that made a interferometer. Dude went in, and people using his own tests, his own stuff, went to prove him right. And FAILED. They used his own calculations, found out he was doing s**t wrong, and then were, 'well dude was biased' and found out he was trying to have things to FIT HIS CONCLUSION. This means every experiment this guy does is now discredited. Since he was trying to prove the aether, and not allowing the aether to prove it's own self. If it existed. Which it doesn't. I'm still waiting for actual measurements. Don't find any that aren't explained by earthly means.
Quote:
First of all, a problem with Special Relativity is the clock or "twins" paradox.
Please... just don't. You are not going to actually.... ******** it.
Quote:
If you launch a rocket from the earth, and it later returns, the clock on board will have run slower than the earth clock.
TIME RUNS SLOWER THE FASTER YOU GO. You can get on a ******** plane, go all around the earth, and notice that your watch is now a few, if not a full minute behind. If you do not understand this, then you have NO IDEA what time is. No idea at all. You see, I actually looked this stuff up, because my favorite hero, THE FLASH actually can go so fast he can turn back time. I wanted to see how that could work. It doesn't is the simple answer.
Prove to me you actually know this premise. Cause time goes slower the faster you go, we've known this for awhile now. We've studied it quite a bit. Seriously. Stop being stupid.
Quote:
Yet, as far as the person on the rocket is concerned, it is the earth that is rushing away from the rocket.
Doesn't this just prove the point we've been pointing out to you since the beginning? That it is subjectivty that makes us think things are how we 'see' them. We need to overcome this bias.
Think about this. You walk into a room bare of all things but a lamp with the bulb showing. This lamp is lit, now as you walk around the lamp you notice no matter which place you go around the lamp the light is POINTING at you. Just because it looks like that, doesn't mean anything. The light is radiating from basically ALL points. Not just AT YOU.
You are stupid if you think that the light is following you.
Quote:
According to relativity, the rocket can claim that it is the earth that is moving, than the earth's clock could be slower than the rocket's clock, yet how can a clock be both slower and faster than another clock?
Again, the faster you go, the more time slows. We know this. We've measured it. We can experience it EVERY ******** day. You are stupid if you think this breaks relativity. Tell me, do you know what the word RELATIVE means?
Cause there is a reason why its called RELATIVE-vity.
No it doesn't. Einstien did not know everything, but people like you know, smarter then you'll ever be, like... you know HAWKING, know this. Relativity isn't wrong. Its relative, to the universe. Its not a problem at all. You only think its a problem because you don't know anything at all.
Consider this: If you are driving down a highway at night, can you tell EXACTLY where the oncoming headlights are? You know in your head they are to the side of you, but they LOOK like they are right in front of you, until they get fairly close. Just because they LOOK like they are in front of you, does not mean they are in front of you. They go past you.
Why the allegories? Cause I doubt your intelligence that's why.
Quote:
Experiments that "confirm" relativity.
Experiements that 'confirm' geocentrism: ......................nope nothing.
Quote:
1. 1919 Eclipse experiment - checkplates of stars were measured during an eclipse and before to determine the deflection of starlight as it passes the sun. Newton predicted (in arc seconds) a .9 change, while Einstein said it would be 1.8. There were problems with the experiment. First they used a mirror to deflect the light into a telescope, which can drastically increase the errors. Also, the heat of the sun on the mirror can warp it, thus introducing further errors. Thirdly, Air cooling during an eclipse can cause considerable air turbulence, which effects starlight. This gave a very random cluster of stars when the data came in.
Yet haven't we been able to better detect this with the advent of satellites? I mean the best things they had the time was that. Nowadays we have hundreds of things, HUNDREDS of things. I guess you wont mention that.
Quote:
1979 - Will (believed in relativity) admits that the results would not have been accepted as proof today.
Because of the flawed materials. If I decided to make paper mache would I be better to use normal paper? Or should I use tissue paper? It can work, decently, with tissue, but works even better with normal paper, or news paper. If all I had is tissue paper to work with, can any blame me? You seem to be blaming them for only being able to use things they had available at the time. Yet, all these scientists, all working all across the globe... none of them have ever disproved RELATIVE-vity.
Quote:
a. Explicable by other means
b. Results were from half to twice the predicted value
c. they had only a 30% accuracy
Again, materials. Do I need to keep going over how you are expecting someone from ancient Egypt to be able to build a working jet engine at their time, or should I keep using analogies?
Quote:
This would not have been accepted as a proof for relativity today, but in 1919 it was, and it stuck.
Quote:
2. Flying-clocks experiment 1971
Quote:
4 clocks were flown eastward than westward. It was claimed that the results supported relativity. But
Quote:
a. see clock paradox again - In relativity you can't choose 1 clock as a standard, they are all relative to each other
Yeah, tiny minuscule flaws in the machined parts. but even done today with as close as we can get, with computers, and the best damn clocks ever made, the results are.... survey says! still Proving time goes slower, the faster you go!
Quote:
b. Essen points out that not all of the results had been used. If they had, the results would have been
(nanoseconds) westbound gain - 3.3 correct value theory
(nanoseconds) eastbound loss - .49 correct value theory
The correct values are over 3 times than those that were expected. Hafele admits "the difference between theory and measurement is disturbing."
Depending on which way the jet stream went. I would need to know that. Planes go slower, going against a jet stream, particularly at that time. Nowadays we just use up more fuel. Still doesn't disprove relativity.
Quote:
3. The Precession of Mercury's Perihelion Axis
Quote:
a. Einstein said that the unexplained 43 arc seconds was explained by his theory, and that classical mechanics were powerless
b. Charles Poor found that if there were a small amount of material around the sun, this would fully explain the 43 seconds (also applies to the eclipse experiment above). That's an explanation without relativity
No it explains that as you go faster, time goes slower. We know this. Scientists know this, in fact there was a recent experiment using a ******** crystal using LIGHT to actually SLOW TIME down to a crawl. Seriously. You are discounting hard science and its hard to actually take you seriously that you don't know basic principles of mechanics.
Quote:
c. The small bulge of the sun's equator causes the precession almost exactly
d. 1898 - Gerber accounted for the precession by assuming that gravity propogated at the speed of light
e. Moon, using the mass of the stars (Mach's Principle) obtained the same results as Einstein without relativity
Yes, cause 1898 is the perfect place it base all science off of. Lets keep putting arsenic and lead in paint, and use asbestos in everything that has to do with heat. Makes perfect sense. If you can't find a MODERN DAY scientist, then you are really pathetic. Then again its to be expected.
Quote:
- 1859 - Fizeau found that light was deflected by flowing water. Einstein claims that the classical explanation does not diminish the conclusiveness of the experiment as a result in favor of relativity. Poor's comment
Did you know that because of the water in the air and the land, that water is blue and since blue is a color that reflects the water in the air reflects the blue color. Thus making the air look blue. In fact the color of the sky in mars is RED. Wonder why. Must be nothing, after all if the aether existed we couldn't ever make it to mars and thus all those landers, and photos and every single satellite image is a conspiracy.
Quote:
"These two sentences should be read and reread... How can an experiment equally well explained by several different theories, be a 'crucial test' in favor of one of them?" If a classical explanation works for something,why is that taken as proof for relativity?
Quote:
4. Muons
- Short-life high velocity particles that should have disintegrated before reaching the earth's surface. Relativity predicts that moving clocks are slower, and it was added as a proof for relativity. However, Setterfield and Barnes showed that their life can be longer due to their speed, independent of relativity. We get the same contradiction as in the "clocks paradox."
Quote:
Those are some of the experiments that were taken to be proof of relativity.
Yeah, until we proved it time and time again with better science. But again, you like using people from 1800's as proof of your claims. Must be the fact that no modern day tech actually SUPPORTS your claims. Sad day.
