You've done no such thing, you only keep proving you have no idea what you're raving about. It's like listening to a three year old explain how a turbo fan jet engine works.
Luchito vs science
- Thread starter Luchito
- Start date
Luchito:
Remember that I asked you three specific questions:
1. Can you point to a specific flaw in the theory of relativity?
That doesn't mean "Can you make vague claims about time, that have nothing to do with anything in the theory of relativity?". It means you have to show that you understand the theory and that you can identify a specific mathematical flaw, or some flaw in the basic postulates.
Can you do that? You can't. I doubt you can even do maths, based on the general standard of your output on this topic.
2. For example, is the mathematics of the theory of relativity flawed or inconsistent in some way? Can you demonstrate that?
For this, you will need to show us some maths.
3. How do you explain the fact that muons can be detected using detectors on the ground, without relativity?
This is a very specific question, relating to explaining a specific experimental result.
Can you explain it without relativity, or can't you?
Do you even know what the relativistic explanation is?
Do you understand why, without relativity, the results of this experiment are a mystery?
I don't think you know anything about this. Prove me wrong.
Remember that I asked you three specific questions:
1. Can you point to a specific flaw in the theory of relativity?
That doesn't mean "Can you make vague claims about time, that have nothing to do with anything in the theory of relativity?". It means you have to show that you understand the theory and that you can identify a specific mathematical flaw, or some flaw in the basic postulates.
Can you do that? You can't. I doubt you can even do maths, based on the general standard of your output on this topic.
2. For example, is the mathematics of the theory of relativity flawed or inconsistent in some way? Can you demonstrate that?
For this, you will need to show us some maths.
3. How do you explain the fact that muons can be detected using detectors on the ground, without relativity?
This is a very specific question, relating to explaining a specific experimental result.
Can you explain it without relativity, or can't you?
Do you even know what the relativistic explanation is?
Do you understand why, without relativity, the results of this experiment are a mystery?
I don't think you know anything about this. Prove me wrong.
You are wrong.
Clocks in satellites tell time differently than clocks on the ground due to their speed. No matter what the design of the clock. No matter how accurate the clock. Even a 100% accurate clock will show a difference.
Clocks at sea level tell time differently than clocks at the top of mountains. No matter what the design of the clock. No matter how accurate the clock. Even a 100% accurate clock will show a difference.
This has been proven. In 1971, physicist Joseph Hafele took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. He flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks in motion to stationary clocks at the United States Naval Observatory. At the end, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of both special and general relativity. This could not have been because the clocks became inaccurate, because the clocks in motion were the exact same clocks, and showed a difference in time that was predicted due to their relative motion - including the fact that they measured time differently in one direction than the other, due to their speeds being different. Nor could it have been due to spurious error, since all four clocks agreed.
Sorry!
Hafele–Keating experiment - Wikipedia
Time is "elastic": Why time passes faster atop a mountain than at sea level
The idea of 'absolute time' is an illusion. Physics and subjective experience reveal why.
bigthink.com
Your poor knowledge in science stops you to be aware of the rule that a negative is not to be proved.
Your theory of relativity is practically based on a time that dilates, distorts, enlarges, shrinks, you name it. Well, in that case time must be a physical mean, a physical entity, something that can be observed, tested, and more.
Where is your time then? Show it.
You have nothing but old conventional ideas that time flows and inherited lunacies that time dilates. After that, nothing physical real until you prove the physical existence of time.
About the results obtained from relativity. If you make a deep review, you will find out that years later, scientists confronted Eddington telling him that the equations of Einstein do not fit well and that are not supporting the results given for the weird behavior of Mercury's orbit. Eddington told them that relativity is right because space time is distorted and that lights waves "appear" to such and such, and more blah blah blah, and he evaded the fact that the formulas and equation of Einstein were garbage to the square. in those years, using the same formulas and equation on Venus, Mars and Earth, the planet Venus was supposed to travel backwards, such was the results using Einstein formulas and equations.
This is how the fraud of relativity has survived, hiding the discoveries from other scientists using the same formulas and obtaining disparate results but the right one.
I bet you never knew before that relativity was recognized as valid thanks to the fraud committed by Eddington. In your imagination you saw the entire scientific community cheering for such recognition. Well, such is not what happened. The rest of scientists rejected such recognition.
You are believing lies when you heard about Relativity in the news all the time. It is a brainwashing that keeps you in a state of stupidity.
For a moment think about it: yeah, where is time? why relativists never show its existence? Where is the beef?
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
GR was demonstrated in 1919 and again in the 1920s with other eclipses.
SR has been demonstrated using atomic clocks and particular decay rates in accelerators.
Dirac used SR to get his equation that also predicted anti matter that was found three years later.
These are some of the most tested verified theories in science.
YYou too, read the book Einstein's Luck. You will find out that new expeditions later on gave disparate results and no one supported relativity.
And one more, the cause of the displacement of the image of the star in question in those expeditions is not even caused by gravity of the Sun. This is the funniest discovery, Newton and Einstein were both dead wrong.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Explain how. Mathematically.
That's a pretty tall request for someone who can't do basic math.
It's interesting to consider how someone like Luchito came to be. I am picturing a scene perhaps 60 years ago in a kitchen somewhere, after a report card comes home.
Father: "Two more F's in math and science! Little Luchito this cannot go on!"
Luchito: "But Dad, it's not my fault!"
Father: "How is it not your fault? You never study."
Luchito: "No, but . . . see . . . it's that . . . it's that I am so SMART that the teacher doesn't understand me! Yeah, that's it. Not my fault if he is too limited to understand my brilliant out-of-the-box take on physics and math!"
And after a little while that meme is the only way he can rationalize his abysmal understanding of math and science. Because if he did NOT make up a nonsense meme like that, he would have to . . . study. And that's just not an option for him. So he reinforces it and builds on it throughout his life, until he gets to the point where he can claim (and actually believe) that he is smarter than Einstein.
Luchito:
Do you know what the postulates are, Luchito?
Your argument is like saying that everything we know about human evolution is wrong because somebody faked Piltdown Man.
---
Now, I notice that your skipped out again on answering those three specific questions I asked you.
That's because you can't answer them, isn't it? Come now. Be honest. You're not fooling anybody.
My poor knowledge runs rings around your abysmal knowledge, without even trying.
No. Go back to basics. Start with special relativity. "My" theory of relativity is based on two postulates. Just two. Everything else follows from those postulates.
Do you know what the postulates are, Luchito?
Nothing in the theory of relativity says that time "flows". Why are you not aware of this?
Then those (unnamed) scientists have been proven wrong. The predictions of general relativity for the anomalous precession of the orbit of Mercury precisely match the value measured in reality.
Where did you get that rubbish from? Did you make it up yourself?
Even if it turned out to be true that Eddington committed an egregious fraud, it would not make a jot of difference to the fact that relativity has been proven accurate time and again by experiments too numerous to count, over a period of 100 years.
Your argument is like saying that everything we know about human evolution is wrong because somebody faked Piltdown Man.
---
Now, I notice that your skipped out again on answering those three specific questions I asked you.
That's because you can't answer them, isn't it? Come now. Be honest. You're not fooling anybody.
He heard something and was confused. There are three possibilties I see:
1) Venus rotates the opposite way all the other planets do, likely as a result of a massive collision during its early formation.
2) Venus occasionally exhibits "retrograde motion." Instead of constantly moving in our sky in the same direction as all the outer planets, Venus sometimes appears to go in the opposite direction. This is because Earth is "lapping" Venus in its orbit, resulting in an optical illusion similar to passing a slower car on a highway.
3) Due to relativity, Mercury's orbit precesses more than it would if only Newtonian mechanics were running things. At its perihelion it is affected more by time dilation than at aphelion, and thus the orbit VERY slowly precesses over the decades.
Take your pick. I have a feeling he mixed up at least two of them.
Wizard of Whatever
Valued Senior Member
Newton and Einstein are both dead, you are dead wrong.
Mathematically?
Mathematics is not a language but a system we use to calculate amounts.
You are telling me to explain mathematically the eating of peanuts and drinking a soda and farting at the end of my meal.
Good luck with that.
Nope.
What the other scientist in Einstein times did, was to use the distance, planet calculated size and other characteristics, and using the same formulas and equations, the orbits of Mars, and Earth were away from the physical perihelion observed, and about Venus, this planet, using Einstein formulas came to be traveling the opposite way.
Of course, you never were told about it, right?
You are very confused indeed.
Since you wanted me to prove a negative, then it won't be a surprise why you defend such a good for nothing theory of relativity, you have no science knowledge but lots of science fiction learnt.
Again, you don't need to discuss a theory by discussing its doctrines point by point.
Let me give you an example.
Le Verrier used a planet called Vulcan to explain the orbit of Mercury at its perihelium.
Einstein didn't discuss anything about it, but he proposed his theory using time dilatation.
Scientists were looking for such a planet Vulcan and found none.
Then, Eddington committed fraud to validate Relativity theory.
In those years, the theory of Le Verrier was invalidated regardless of the acceptable mathematical results but because lack of evidence: no planet Vulcan.
Today, I Luchito, invalidate the theory of Relativity regardless of its formulas and equations results but because lack of evidence: no existing time.
There you go, this is how science works. No more talk.
I'm the greatest. In my job, I was the one finding the causes of lots of problems which can't be solved by the rest. I fixed them and/or made referrals for the experts. One of the guys, after I solved a hard case, came to me and told me, "Luchito, you are bad, man... you are bad..."(meaning: the best of the best)
Of course, I'm bad.
In
Ha ha ha ha, I love it.
With Einstein the scenario was completely different, He had "fs" in all subjects. ha ha ha ha
His elementary school teachers declared him a mental retarded child. (read early biographies about Einstein)
He was not capable to talk fluently up to his 9 years of age, a typical symptom that he wasn't born right or normal at the level of the rest of children. He was a solitary boy as an added symptom. As typical with this kind of syndrome, he mastered playing with numbers, and with this at hand his parents took him to other schools as a "genius" But he was a retarded boy regardless.
Some media showed his grades in school, which weren't that bad in high school and up. What the media is not telling is that while the rest of students finished the school year on time, on the other hand Einstein had to study additional months to catch up and be able to pass the grades. Again, another symptom of suffering of a syndrome.
When he reached adulthood, in an interview/ conversation with a friend, Einstein recognized he was born with mental delay, he said it with his own words.
I was so unlucky that Math and Science weren't "my thing" when I was a boy. But my findings are based on real physical means, no imaginations of a retarded dude but in evidence and facts.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Again no, Weber recognised his gifts. Why are you making stuff up?
Which other scientist? Citation, please.
Luchito:
Your empty posturing is a waste of space. Save it.
For the record, here are your answers to my questions:
1. Can you point to a specific flaw in the theory of relativity?
NO, Luchito cannot do this.
2. For example, is the mathematics of the theory of relativity flawed or inconsistent in some way? Can you demonstrate that?
NO, Luchito cannot demonstrate this. In fact, Luchito can't do maths.
3. How do you explain the fact that muons can be detected using detectors on the ground, without relativity?
Luchito can't explain that.
So, we're done.
Next!
Your empty posturing is a waste of space. Save it.
For the record, here are your answers to my questions:
1. Can you point to a specific flaw in the theory of relativity?
NO, Luchito cannot do this.
2. For example, is the mathematics of the theory of relativity flawed or inconsistent in some way? Can you demonstrate that?
NO, Luchito cannot demonstrate this. In fact, Luchito can't do maths.
3. How do you explain the fact that muons can be detected using detectors on the ground, without relativity?
Luchito can't explain that.
So, we're done.
Next!