Jump to content

GRAVITY ERROR? New Large-Telescope Measurements Show There Is A Serious PROBLEM With Existing Theories of Gravity, Dark Matter And General Relativity


Recommended Posts

On 10/3/2020 at 12:43 AM, theo102 said:

Measurement depends on your model of the phenomena being reliable as well an your instrumentation being accurate.

 

 

So indirectly you are suggesting that a phenomenon called "the aether" is not detectable because the people claiming its existence can't actually explain what it is, what it does or why, therefore measuring this is not accurate? Or am I misreading you?

 

Can you not see why that is a problem for claiming it in the first place? It is supposed to be a medium for light transfer and as such has never been detected in any format and the speed of light in space itself disproves its existence.

 

 

Instrumentation being accurate huh?

 

https://physicsworld.com/a/michelson-morley-experiment-is-best-yet/

 

100 million times better

Schiller’s experiment is sensitive to eight of these parameters and the team was able to show that four are zero to about two parts in 1017; one is zero to about one part in 1016; and three are zero to about two parts in 1013. According to Schiller, this represents a factor of more than 10 improvement over previous measurements of these parameters and a factor of about 100 million better than Michelson and Morley’s original experiment.

 

Edited by Comedy Time
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Gravity explains everything that it is claimed to do. Quite how you can reference the aether when Michelson/Morley proved it didn't exist is baffling. Aren't you one of the space deniers? How in hell

Can I just politely ask why you joined this forum? It's just that you remind me of one or two previous members here, who very stoically defended the 'established' scientific beliefs and stifled any 'i

If Einstein was WRONG and things can very much "travel faster than the speed of light" then we may be WITHIN VERY EASY REACH OF MANY OTHER CIVILIZATIONS IN THE UNIVERSE.   This is why it is

Posted Images

11 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

So indirectly you are suggesting that a phenomenon called "the aether" is not detectable because the people claiming its existence can't actually explain what it is, what it does or why, therefore measuring this is not accurate? Or am I misreading you?

 

The MM experiment was to test the idea that light is a wave and that the aether is the medium for that wave. It was a purely mechanistic model. A mechanistic model isn't reliable because of the way that light interacts with consciousness.

 

11 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

It is supposed to be a medium for light transfer and as such has never been detected in any format and the speed of light in space itself disproves its existence.

 

It's been detected by Silvertooth and de Witte. The fact that waves have a propagation speed obviously doesn't imply that waves travel without a medium.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, theo102 said:

The MM experiment was to test the idea that light is a wave and that the aether is the medium for that wave. It was a purely mechanistic model. A mechanistic model isn't reliable because of the way that light interacts with consciousness.

 

Righto, exit planet science... You want to dismiss an experiment by devices because the readings must be flawed due to "consciousness".

 

6 hours ago, theo102 said:

It's been detected by Silvertooth and de Witte. The fact that waves have a propagation speed obviously doesn't imply that waves travel without a medium.

 

Nope.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2018/04/06/the-tale-of-a-1986-experiment-that-proved-einstein-wrong/#3a8a177a3ed3

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26432454_The_Roland_De_Witte_1991_Experiment_to_the_Memory_of_Roland_De_Witte

 

What am I missing?

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

Righto, exit planet science... You want to dismiss an experiment by devices because the readings must be flawed due to "consciousness".

 

Science depends on objectivity. You can't be objective if what you're measuring is affected by your own consciousness.

 

14 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

What am I missing?

 

 

The distinction between crap science and good science.

 

"Marett found there was so much noise in the data, the variation in wavelengths could be made to agree with either sidereal or solar time."

 

In other words, Marett's experiment wasn't good enough. Your denial doesn't affect the facts.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, theo102 said:

Science depends on objectivity. You can't be objective if what you're measuring is affected by your own consciousness.

 

 

This is why the experiments can be repeatable by people with a different "consciousness!

 

1 hour ago, theo102 said:

The distinction between crap science and good science.

 

 

Nothing to do with what I just posted. Your examples were the former....hence my question. Learn the differewnce.

 

1 hour ago, theo102 said:

"Marett found there was so much noise in the data, the variation in wavelengths could be made to agree with either sidereal or solar time."

 

In other words, Marett's experiment wasn't good enough. Your denial doesn't affect the facts.

 

Ok, well experiment invalidated. Now what?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

This is why the experiments can be repeatable by people with a different "consciousness!

 

 

The point is that the aether model is wrong - not entirely wrong, but wrong as Michelson and Morely understood it.

 

37 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

Nothing to do with what I just posted.

 

You posted about Marett's crap science.

 

37 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

Now what?

 

You're left with results that evidence the existence of the aether (or something like it). Also de Witte references Miller, so that's three sources.

 

The relationship between light and consciousness implicates quantum theory.

 

Edited by theo102
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, theo102 said:

The point is that the aether model is wrong - not entirely wrong, but wrong as Michelson and Morely understood it.

 

 

Ok, so no matter how many times an experiment that MUST detect the aether is run it always fails to detect it. So the answer is not that it doesn't exist, you are saying it does exist but it doesn't do or exist as is claimed??

 

8 hours ago, theo102 said:

You posted about Marett's crap science.

 

 

It wasn't crap.

 

8 hours ago, theo102 said:

You're left with results that evidence the existence of the aether (or something like it).

 

 

No. You are left with results that detected no aether. Define "something like it".

 

8 hours ago, theo102 said:

Also de Witte references Miller, so that's three sources.

 

I showed why their results were invalid.

 

8 hours ago, theo102 said:

The relationship between light and consciousness implicates quantum theory.

 

Well good for that because, quantum theory explains everything doesn't it. One of the most bizarre of all the sciences....it's great at predictions but not so good at explaining reality.

 

I'm actually getting a bit bored with this now, so unless your next response is factually incorrect, I think I'll leave you to it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

Ok, so no matter how many times an experiment that MUST detect the aether is run it always fails to detect it.

 

No, your model for the aether is wrong, and you've been shown why your experiment was crap: it didn't distinguish between sidereal day cycles and solar day cycles.

 

You have failed to address the point, you lose.

 

Edited by theo102
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gravity is time. When you pull toward a large body you are pulling towards a mass which is warping space/time.

Likewise, the universe is expanding, faster, that doesn't mean gravity is weakening, there is no gravity, time is slowing down.

The larger the universe gets to our observations the slower it will get but we aren't noticing it. That is why the light of distant galaxies is red, time is slowing down. 

it just makes so much sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2020 at 9:19 AM, theo102 said:

 

You have failed to address the point, you lose.

 

 

You failed to address why that is significant. And if failure to address something means one loses.....then you are failing quite spectacularly!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, theo102 said:

 

It's significant because it shows incapacity to argue rationally.

 

 

You seem to be having problems reading what I am typing.

 

You made a point, but you failed to establish why it was significant for the whole original subject of this exchange.

 

Get it? And in terms of me failing to address something, I can list you a quite large number of posts that you have completely ignored!

 

By your own standard, you have incapacity to argue rationally and it is off the scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, theo102 said:

No, you obviously didn't quote anything I said. 

 

Sigh, your comprehension failure is the issue...

 

YOU: You have failed to address the point, you lose.

ME: You failed to address why that is significant.      (ie. the point!)

YOU: It's significant because it shows incapacity to argue rationally.

 

I then clarify your comprehension issue....

ME: You made a point, but you failed to establish why it was significant for the whole original subject of this exchange.

YOU: I'm not. Quote what you think I misunderstood.    (well had you read the post properly just above this line!)

ME: Irony ....i just did in that post.

 

So to spell it out, you called me out for failing to address a point. This after you fail to address hundreds of points, You failed to show how your point was significant.

 

4 hours ago, theo102 said:

Don't bother replying, it will be ignored.

 

That's just par for the course with most people I "debate" with.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...