Scientist 'Make Up' Evidence to suit their needs.

[alphaparticle]

 

   There's not enough energy in the universe?    

 

 

That’s quite funny. Because of the very name of the standard cosmological model…

 

 

 

  The universe is not 100% 'electric'.    

 

 

Agreed. However, ironically, most of the real matter is, by far, by VERY far, plasma. Yet the universe is taught in schools as gravitational…

 

 

 

    There are four fundamental forces in the universe, the electromagnetic force is one.   

 

 

And the weakest of them all, by many orders of magnitude, is gravity. And yet they teach this universe as being gravitational…

 

 

 

   Finding mammals in the pre-cambrian    

 

 

I think that was the point Sculelos was trying to make. Regardless, there was no cambrian. What evolutionists call cambrian (fossil) explosion is actually evidence of the Flood.

 

 

 

  Relativistic corrections go into your GPS system.     

 

 

Actually, GPS proves Einstein wrong (both special and general relativity).

 

 

 

 GPS uses general and special relativistic corrections. That's a fact. 

 

 

Actually, it’s a fact that that’s a lie.

 

 

 

 The most spectacular evidence that Relativity is true though are given by nuclear weapons 

 

 

Actually, relativity has nothing to do with the nukes. Moreover, those working at the nukes made huge efforts to keep Einstein away from there. Theoretical science (Einstein) has many times nothing to do with real (applied) science (nukes).

 

 

 

  Relativisty, special and general, is incredibly well tested and established empirically on multiple fronts. 

 

 

Perhaps you should also visit the sites proving each and every test of Einstein’s relativity wrong, not just those claiming it’s true. Wouldn’t that be scientific of you? And you should start with MMX itself.

 

By the way, would you agree that if what you said above is true, then there wouldn’t be any more tests of Einstein’s relativity? Because I can give you examples how top space agencies are still testing Einstein general relativity. Moreover, they are also testing ALTERNATIVE theories of gravity. Tell me, what does THIS say to you?

 

 

 

 The most advanced quantum mechanics we have has relativistic corrections in it.   

 

 

QM clearly contradicts general relativity. Also the special relativity. Moreover, careful study shows that spacetime doesn’t exist in the micro world either (just as was shown it doesn’t exist in the macro world).

 

 

 

  4. So the fact that we have actually been in space and seen this entire system is irrelevant to you? 

 

 

“Being in space” has nothing to do with heliocentrism. Instead has everything to do with geocentrism. I think you’re lost in reference frames - just as JDavis.

 

 

 

   No, that model is not consistent with what we've seen. If geocentrism were true, they would not have to account for the movement of earth, relative to the sun, when sending out various probes.    

 

 

Sorry, but you don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

 

 

   5. no. Besides which, there are other radioactive isotopes we can use to do dating.   

 

 

Yes. Besides, each and every time you try to prove old age for a fossil (biological evolution) or a rock (geological evolution), you prove chemical evolution wrong. Are you even aware of that? Moreover, without chemical evolution, you don’t have geological & biological evolution. Are you aware of this too?

 

Gravity wins because there is no 'anti mass'. That is why cosmology is the study of General Relativity, more or less, on large scales gravity is what matters in terms of gross geometry.

 

If you think it's a lie that GPS uses relativsitic corrections you're just crazily and unfortunately mistaken.

 

Of course relativity is being tested to the utmost, that is what physicists do- determine the limits of validity of theories. So what? So far it's passed every test with flying colors. It is expected to break down at *some* point though. That doesn't mean it's not valid. Newton's laws are valid even though we know they only work for certain scales.

 

Quantum mechanics *uses* special relativistic corrections. If you don't think so it just tells me you've not taken upper level QM classes. So be it.

 

You'll have to expand your last point. Why would radioactive testing disprove 'chemical evolution'?

[JDavis]

For Neil,

   From the OSU...http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html  Could you tell us where they went wrong on this paper?

 

To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy.

Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion.

 

Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

 

The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus, Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently about 5000 meters in the air somewhere over Detroit.

 

The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, they slowed down the ticking frequency of the atomic clocks before they were launched so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations. Further, each GPS receiver has built into it a microcomputer that (among other things) performs the necessary relativistic calculations when determining the user's location.

Relativity is not just some abstract mathematical theory: understanding it is absolutely essential for our global navigation system to work properly!

[neil_]

  Gravity wins 

 

Gravity loses at all times. Hence not only the expansion, but even worse for you: an accelerated expansion.

 

Not to mention that, in the conditions of expansion, gravity shouldn’t exist in the first place (hence another strong argument for Creation, if one wants to keep gravity in play, and I personally don’t). Matter is ALWAYS dissipated by expansion, not gathered together to form anything (a planet, a star, whatever). In other words, cosmic evolution is disproved by the simple fact of expansion.

 

Regardless of this and that, no one has ever proved that there indeed is gravity in cosmic space. No one - ever. It is only claimed it is. That’s why I am cautious and therefore tend to resume what we call gravity to Earth. Especially since there are no gravitational waves. A fact that not only clearly shows that the universe is not gravitational, but also shows general relativity to be false (via the non-existence of space-time, or directly as a gravitational theory).

 

Furthermore, no one has ever proved that gravity (if exists) works at distance. It is only claimed it does. Therefore, any gravitational theory CANNOT be science.

 

 

     because there is no 'anti mass'      

 

No need. Expansion does the job.

 

 

   That is why cosmology is the study of General Relativity    

 

Wrong. Don’t mistake the formal cosmology for other cosmologies.

 

Regardless, cosmology is NOT “the study of General Relativity”. General relativity is only the technical describer of the formal cosmology (aka big bang).

 

And it’s wrong anyway – for example, because the universe doesn’t obey your cosmological principle.

 

 

   on large scales gravity is what matters in terms of gross geometry. 

 

On large scales gravity doesn’t work. Strange enough, on small scales doesn’t work either (see lunar orbit anomaly, for example).

 

Moreover, even in YOUR cosmology (big bang) the space is flat, so not sure what you meant above about geometry.

 

 

 If you think it's a lie that GPS uses relativsitic corrections you're just crazily and unfortunately mistaken. 

 

It would have been nice for you, instead of calling me crazy, to actually call for evidence. That would have been scientific, wouldn’t it?

 

 

  Of course relativity is being tested to the utmost, that is what physicists do- determine the limits of validity of theories. So what? So far it's passed every test with flying colors.  

 

What you’re talking about is only propaganda. I think I already suggested to you (or to another) to check out sources proving Einstein relativity tests wrong, not just those claiming it “passed every test with flying colors”. Having an exclusive point of view and excluding all the contrary either interpretations or evidence is certainly not scientific.

 

For example, MMX. Are you even aware of alternative explanations? How about a later one, Hafele-Keating. Claimed as proof for Einstein, have you even bothered to read what Essen said on that? You should have, since he’s the one who invented those atomic clocks. So if he said it the experiment didn’t work, then it didn’t work, no matter what YOU say – and all the other Einstein’s fans in the world, be them billions. And you should read Essen to find out WHY it didn’t work.

 

 

  Quantum mechanics *uses* special relativistic corrections.  

 

The old Dirac-Schroedinger game. Oh yes. Buddy, I didn’t say otherwise. What I said is that QM contradicts especially general relativity (hence the desperation in mainstream for a theory of everything). And there are also papers showing that special relativity fails too. For example this one:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.4253

 

Even more, the paper shows the existence of ether, the non-existence of flat (special relativity) space-time (the curved, general relativistic, space-time doesn’t exist because the gravitational waves don’t exist), and also shows a way to experimentally distinguish between Lorentz theory and Einstein’s special relativity (which, according to mainstream, is impossible). Not only that, but the paper shows Lorentz theory to be true and special relativity to be false.

 

 

     You'll have to expand your last point.      

 

Each and every time you “date” a rock (geological evolution) or a fossil (biological evolution) in order to prove an old age and therefore evolution, you show chemical evolution as false. Because those radiometric things you use for dating are always DECAYING (they are not progressing in the periodic table, on the contrary).

 

Regardless the scale, what we see all the time is a decaying universe – just the opposite of an evolutionary universe.

[neil_]

   Relativity is not just some abstract mathematical theory: understanding it is absolutely essential for our global navigation system to work properly!  

 

Completely wrong. In fact, Einstein’s relativity (both of them) is unable to explain things. Why don’t you google Ronald Hatch GPS. You’ll eventually find his scientific papers (or his book) on the topic. You should read them, since this fellow actually had to make the GPS to work. He even has personal patents in it. Let me put it another way, so you’ll understand: without Hatch, GPS wouldn’t work.

[enoob57]

Fulfilling God's Word to them - that if they choose the path of self authority God will give them over to their own imaginations...

Rom 1:18-23

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible

attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish

hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like

corruptible man — and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
NKJV

They reason the rot to be improvement!   Love, Steven

[JDavis]

Relativity is not just some abstract mathematical theory: understanding it is absolutely essential for our global navigation system to work properly!

Completely wrong. In fact, Einstein’s relativity (both of them) is unable to explain things. Why don’t you google Ronald Hatch GPS. You’ll eventually find his scientific papers (or his book) on the topic. You should read them, since this fellow actually had to make the GPS to work. He even has personal patents in it. Let me put it another way, so you’ll understand: without Hatch, GPS wouldn’t work.

I will check this out but it does not address the paper.

Telling people to Google things is not the same as supporting your claims.

If you are going to make claims you need to support them with more than just "Google it"

[Ninevite]

 

 

Relativity is not just some abstract mathematical theory: understanding it is absolutely essential for our global navigation system to work properly!

Completely wrong. In fact, Einstein’s relativity (both of them) is unable to explain things. Why don’t you google Ronald Hatch GPS. You’ll eventually find his scientific papers (or his book) on the topic. You should read them, since this fellow actually had to make the GPS to work. He even has personal patents in it. Let me put it another way, so you’ll understand: without Hatch, GPS wouldn’t work.

I will check this out but it does not address the paper.

Telling people to Google things is not the same as supporting your claims.

If you are going to make claims you need to support them with more than just "Google it"

 

 

With all due respect, J, I am a firm believer that one ought to google things. I understand the want for links in forum posts, however this "links or it never happened" mentallity is slightly detrimental. Neil has provided several resources above for those with genuine curriosity.

 

I think "google it" ought to be used more often as "linky or this stinky" is often abused.

[JDavis]

Relativity is not just some abstract mathematical theory: understanding it is absolutely essential for our global navigation system to work properly!

Completely wrong. In fact, Einstein’s relativity (both of them) is unable to explain things. Why don’t you google Ronald Hatch GPS. You’ll eventually find his scientific papers (or his book) on the topic. You should read them, since this fellow actually had to make the GPS to work. He even has personal patents in it. Let me put it another way, so you’ll understand: without Hatch, GPS wouldn’t work.

I will check this out but it does not address the paper.

Telling people to Google things is not the same as supporting your claims.

If you are going to make claims you need to support them with more than just "Google it"

With all due respect, J, I am a firm believer that one ought to google things. I understand the want for links in forum posts, however this "links or it never happened" mentallity is slightly detrimental. Neil has provided several resources above for those with genuine curriosity.

I think "google it" ought to be used more often as "linky or this stinky" is often abused.

Links should be included but telling someone to "Google it" provides no insight into if the one telling you to "Google it" has any clue as to what they are taking about.

Give support and add links to support your words is the way to go

[Ninevite]

 

Links should be included but telling someone to "Google it" provides no insight into if the one telling you to "Google it" has any clue as to what they are taking about.

Give support and add links to support your words is the way to go

 

 

So be it.

 

I "googled it" for you.

 

http://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/

[JDavis]

 

 

Links should be included but telling someone to "Google it" provides no insight into if the one telling you to "Google it" has any clue as to what they are taking about.

Give support and add links to support your words is the way to go

 

 

So be it.

 

I "googled it" for you.

 

http://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/

 

 

I already googled it and read about him and his book. 

 

Let me ask you this, in what way does telling someone to Google something offer any insight into if the person has any knowledge at all about a subject?

 

Telling someone to google something without adding your own two thoughts and words is either a lazy way out or a sign that someone has no real clue what they are speaking of.

 

I have not seen enough from Neil to make up my mind which it is yet