Anonymous Participant

A reaction essentially identical to any other religious fanatic. I said I could debunk any experimental proof that appears to confirm Einsteins mathematical predictions, why don't you try me?

I could have sat here all night responding to the various comments on this thread, but instead I'm going to add my own thoughts which do not relate to anyone elses. Firstly, the "theory of relativity" is a poor label for Einsteins work. At the time it was first called a theory it had never been tested, it was simply announced as such. It is also critical to understand that similar theories existed well before he penned his famous conclusions and he admitted being incapable of supporting it through his own work. It took the input of many individuals who never got a single bit of credit to form the mathematical basis of the theory. Einstein himself accepted a professorship under the condition he never be required to teach! Think about that, and what it means. Could it be if he had tried to teach it would have been quickly realized he didn't have any understanding of what had been presented as his own work? Einstein was a creation of popular culture, an icon, a superstar, but like so many others like him there were thousands of more competent and legitimate scientists who were totally unknown. While I realize my opinion is not important as I am not a god of science like Einstein, I personally believe the theory is a mathematical attempt to hornswaggle the profane, that there is no logical physical basis for the so called theory and it is therefor invalid. I can debunk every single scientific experiment that claims to support the theory using conventional physics, and yet never be heard. THAT is a a problem, when science becomes a faith based religion where the majority defend a given idea without understanding it themselves while censoring the input of those who formulate conflicting ideas, it is no longer science at all. Science has always been constrained to the desires of whomever was in control at the time, take the catholic church for example , which persecuted scientists simple for denying the geocentric teachings of Catholicism.. I think what the wide acceptance of this theory actually proves is who is in control of our society and therefor academia now, nothing more really. Scientists who have ideas which don't fit the agenda aren't accepted until whoever is behind it no longer has the power to censor them. I can't help but observe that i get essentially the same response on a physics forum when I say i think the theory of relativity is wrong as I would if I walked in a Baptist church and said I don't think Jesus was the son of God. No one can explain why I can't hold that view with actual proof, only that it does not agree with what "everyone" else believes to be true and therefore is unacceptable if I want to be in the group. Gravity is quite clearly a force. If force is required to counteract it, it is a force. Even if you do believe it is caused by mass following a "curvature of space time" while trying to follow conventional physical laws and go in a straight line until another force acts upon it, it is a force and anyone that denies that is quite simply not a physicist and has no place in a discussion concerning the subject. The fact that they cannot logically be linked should tell you something if you were really smart! If we have to throw out Newton to accept Einstein I'm outta here! If the two don't correlate logically then one is wrong, and I'm going with Newton! I contend that the "big bang" theory violates basic laws of thermodynamics and is therefor a weak hypothesis at best. On the face of it, it sounds so patently ridiculous that even an intelligent 6 grade student of science would laugh if he actually understood what is being claimed, that the source of all of the matter and energy in the universe was an explosion of an infinitely tiny "singularity" that sprang forth from nothing itself and resulted in the universe constructing itself into an almost infinity complex interaction of matter and energy. It's not just a violation of the basic concept of entropy , it's just a laughable fairy tale. Claiming the universe is the result of an explosion is the same thing as claiming a tornado hit a junkyard and assembled a fleet of aircraft carriers. In the end if you believe the big bang theory is correct, unless you can explain how the "singularity" came into existence itself, you HAVE NOT explained the existence of the universe and how it was formed. What we are eventually faced with is the intelligent arrangement is undeniable and is the only thing that allows science to interpret the world around us using the processes it does. It is much easier to believe the universe and time are infinite and the universe itself a sentient , conscious being that we and everything else are part of. While on the face of it this sounds religious and in conflict with scientific ideas, in reality there is not a single observation or experiment than can prove otherwise, and every experiment actually tends to support it. The fact that we cannot disprove the idea does not mean it is false, there are countless ways to falsify it , all you have to do is prove there's not an intelligent arrangement....GET TO IT AND GOOD LUCK TO YOU! One thing I can say with certainty is that every scientist who ever left his mark on the field prior to the late 19th and 20th century believed in an intelligent arrangement of the universe, and therefor an intelligent sentient conscious creator. It wasn't until very recently that science was used as a bully pulpit for atheism,and became the religion of atheism.. The most disturbing aspect of it is that it forces the student of science to ignore every piece of evidence and everything he sees around him and accept a faith based idea that excludes the most obvious explanation. What I find revealing is how toxic claiming a belief in creation is to a scientists credibility. While trying to justify religious beliefs with science is fools errand, religion is a creation of the thoughts of men just like science. I am not religious as I believe religion is nothing more than than superstitious nonsense , but I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater either. I would like to pint out that here is no "rule" of science that constrains all explanations to those that don't involve some intelligent input. It is often claimed we cannot prove or disprove the existence of "god' and therefor it is not a valid scientific idea, but the truth is we CAN prove the universe is intelligently arranged and no one can prove it isn't, and if it is indeed intelligently arranged, it had to have been arranged by intelligence.

One thing that is certain is we are all traveling forward through time, and are thus time travelers. If time is a variable that slows down or speeds up, then relativity has a fundamental flaw, because how fast light travels in a given frame of reference would always be different than in another and the given velocity of light would be variable when observed from different perspectives, but what we see instead is that it is a constant in all frames of reference and observation. While gravity is not created by the Earths rotation, it's overall force is most certainly affected by that rotation and the centripetal acceleration that results. I'm not sure how helpful this is but motion affects gravity and can create artificial gravitational effects. Eventually gravity will be understood as an effect of electrostatic attraction between dissimilar charged particles in matter , but that is another thread Pardon me for my confusion, but one of the force vectors created by a rotational acceleration IS indeed centripetal acceleration. While acceleration of the rotation is not necessary for the force of centripetal acceleration to exist, it DOES indeed directly effect its value and if no rotational acceleration had ever existed there would be no centripetal acceleration. They're not the same thing exactly obviously but are intrinsically linked, which you seem to be unaware of. While it isn't a proper scientific nomenclature, how fast something is rotating around a central point or changing position does indeed have a direct correlation to the centripetal acceleration that acts on said object or mass. Take the example of a simple flywheel, when torque is applied it's rotational velocity increases and the force created by centripetal acceleration increases. Without rotation, no centripetal acceleration can exist. it might be rotation of a fixed mass or one mass around another held in orbit by gravity, a mechanical link or any number of ways. In a discussion involving any subject it is critical to always use correct terminology and nomenclature to describe a given component of your thoughts. Language is the commonality we all use to understand each other. The problem with what you said is no two people could likely be certain what it was exactly. That being said, YOU ARE NOT ALONE! There are many so called theories in science and especially physics that no two people have the same understanding of . but in that case it is simply because they don't really make any sense and defy logic or conventional wisdom. I think looking back on the 20th century, we will see it as a dark age of science where no one actually understood any of the widely touted "theories" in the same way. IMO for a theory to be valid, there must be some logical consensus about what said theory claims. The fact that it is testable using mathematics only proves it is an artificial mathematical construct, Hollywood in science..For a theory to be valid it has to be universally understood by those educated in the field of physics, and testable by conclusive experimentation that cannot be debunked through other explanations of the observed phenomenon.