Question http://problemswithrelativity.com/

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jan 7, 2020
105
39
110
Visit site
These are real problems with relativity. Contact for the author is provided, but I challenge you to try to explain away any of these here. I am throwing down the gauntlet. No running away. If you cannot reconcile any of these, it is proof the theory is very broken. So, who is going to take this on? If you were to fix these issues you would probably win a Nobel prize.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Truthseeker007
Jan 10, 2020
5
3
515
Visit site
Why bother? The guy asserts a number things aren't true that you can pick up a telescope and see with your own eyes.

Relativity has a century of experiments and nobody has ever encountered an instance of an experiment. And yet we have yet another "I wrote a website that disproves einstein" guy making claims that on both first principles and end result contradict the evidence.

Theres nothing to debate. The web page is pseudoscience, and no good comes from debating pseudoscience peddlers, it just validates their delusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Dec 11, 2019
533
205
560
Visit site
Why bother? The guy asserts a number things aren't true that you can pick up a telescope and see with your own eyes.

Relativity has a century of experiments and nobody has ever encountered an instance of an experiment. And yet we have yet another "I wrote a website that disproves einstein" guy making claims that on both first principles and end result contradict the evidence.

Theres nothing to debate. The web page is pseudoscience, and no good comes from debating pseudoscience peddlers, it just validates their delusions.

You got any examples? Of what is asserted but not true.
 
Jan 7, 2020
105
39
110
Visit site
Why bother? The guy asserts a number things aren't true that you can pick up a telescope and see with your own eyes.

Relativity has a century of experiments and nobody has ever encountered an instance of an experiment. And yet we have yet another "I wrote a website that disproves einstein" guy making claims that on both first principles and end result contradict the evidence.

Theres nothing to debate. The web page is pseudoscience, and no good comes from debating pseudoscience peddlers, it just validates their delusions.
I am sure that you think that a force can do work upon itself and cause gravitational collapse of a gas cloud to form a star. Given that things cannot perform work on themselves, gravity would be in violation of thermodynamics in star formation if the gravity brings everything together and causes the matter to become hot as a result. That would be gravity creating energy from itself and a force cannot work on itself. The moon has twice the gravitational pull from the sun when it is directly between the two, why do we still have a moon if that is the only force in operation? If you were correct or actually knew anything you would have been able to provide sources to all of these experiments that prove the claims wrong. I know you cannot see them, but they are always there. Slapping you in the face like flabby pork fillets. Do you see them, the wrongdongs?
 
Jan 7, 2020
105
39
110
Visit site
Cosmological constant abandoned
Main article: Cosmological constant
After Hubble's discovery was published, Albert Einstein abandoned his work on the cosmological constant, which he had designed to modify his equations of general relativity to allow them to produce a static solution, which he thought was the correct state of the universe. The Einstein equations in their simplest form model generally either an expanding or contracting universe, so Einstein's cosmological constant was artificially created to counter the expansion or contraction to get a perfect static and flat universe.[31] After Hubble's discovery that the universe was, in fact, expanding, Einstein called his faulty assumption that the universe is static his "biggest mistake".[31] On its own, general relativity could predict the expansion of the universe, which (through observations such as the bending of light by large masses, or the precession of the orbit of Mercury) could be experimentally observed and compared to his theoretical calculations using particular solutions of the equations he had originally formulated.

In 1931, Einstein made a trip to Mount Wilson to thank Hubble for providing the observational basis for modern cosmology.[32]

The cosmological constant has regained attention in recent decades as a hypothesis for dark energy.[33]

Einstein had a different theory until Hubble "Proved" him wrong through his observations. Again, we are in a cloud of dust that Hubble did not know about when he made his measurements. The equipment he used to do this is less accurate than what people have at home and this effectively ended the search for an answer. If Hubble was wrong, then it doesn't allow for Einstein work, his own WORDS. The bending of light that has been observed is better explained through atmospheric lensing.

Hubble was able to plot a trend line from the 46 galaxies he studied and obtain a value for the Hubble constant of 500 km/s/Mpc (much higher than the currently accepted value due to errors in his distance calibrations). (See cosmic distance ladder for details.)


This is so wrong it is terrible. It acts as if space is homogenous and it is in the article very clearly.

Idealized Hubble's law[edit]
The mathematical derivation of an idealized Hubble's law for a uniformly expanding universe is a fairly elementary theorem of geometry in 3-dimensional Cartesian/Newtonian coordinate space, which, considered as a metric space, is entirely homogeneous and isotropic (properties do not vary with location or direction). Simply stated the theorem is this:


Any two points which are moving away from the origin, each along straight lines and with speed proportional to distance from the origin, will be moving away from each other with a speed proportional to their distance apart.
In fact this applies to non-Cartesian spaces as long as they are locally homogeneous and isotropic; specifically to the negatively and positively curved spaces frequently considered as cosmological models (see shape of the universe).

An observation stemming from this theorem is that seeing objects recede from us on Earth is not an indication that Earth is near to a center from which the expansion is occurring, but rather that every observer in an expanding universe will see objects receding from them.
 
Jan 7, 2020
105
39
110
Visit site
Yes folks, H0 is what I call a miscreant constant :) Here is a new report on H0, Scientists further refine how quickly the universe is expanding I note some comments from the report,
This means that it should also deal with some of the issues with relativity if we stopped with the Big Bang and gravity centric.

The biggest issue is that gravity is not constant or there are other forces acting upon it that we do not understand. I agree with the idea that it is electrical in nature. This can explain a lot and I think that dropping special relativity and combining EU with general. This should allow for things to actually work. SAFIRE produces results that do nothing, but confirm the Electric Sun Model. Looking at the massive magnetic fields that the planets have, which were not predicted, also makes a lot of sense because magnets moving around a central source produces an electric charge. We have layers of plasma in the atmosphere and solar flares (which are not explosions releasing a EMP or we would have no satellites) but releasing hot plasma and massive amounts of electrons that can set telegraph wires on fire during the Carrington Event. Also, look at solar flares as sources for most of the craters and how some appear to have ended up "under" lava flows. Look at how we have so few craters anywhere in the solar system that are not straight on. How likely do you think it is that almost every single meteor that hit the moon made a perfect crater? Some of them have been found to have elements that are only produced at relativistic temperature, which would require an impact that would have blown up the moon, unless you think it was hit with plasma. Does it not make more sense that the sun is a ball of plasma, which exhibits electrical properties and does not obey any of the rules that it should if it were a gas. Look at the arc formation that turns into solar flares, the filamentary structures around the sides of sun spots, the fact that the middle of sun spots is cooler than the surrounding area and the fact that the corona is hotter than the surface of the sun. How would a nuclear explosion form an arc to release into space and be able to catch phone lines on fire and blow out transformers, but not destroy all of the satellites and space station? You have 12-18 hours until the actual plasma and stuff hits after the flash. EMP propagates at the speed of light, so why the delay and the effects on telegraph lines during the Carrington event? Catching on fire as if it were overloaded by electricity, as would happen to any wire you run too much current through.
 
Jan 13, 2020
64
31
4,560
Visit site
These are real problems with relativity. Contact for the author is provided, but I challenge you to try to explain away any of these here. I am throwing down the gauntlet. No running away. If you cannot reconcile any of these, it is proof the theory is very broken. So, who is going to take this on? If you were to fix these issues you would probably win a Nobel prize.

I, for one, am not going to sift through that article for anything worthy of response.

If you understand these concerns, then you can explain them. If you can explain them, you can post your explanations here, in your own words.

If you can't do these things, then you don't understand any of the material anyway, so discussing it with you would be a waste of time, right?

So, I guess, let's start slow: Pick one "contradiction" or "problem", and explain it, in your own words.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts