+- +-

+- User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 117
Latest: relentlesshiker
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 13992
Total Topics: 809
Most Online Today: 330
Most Online Ever: 771
(July 30, 2019, 01:13:39 am)
Users Online
Members: 2
Guests: 133
Total: 135

Author Topic: Can You Debunk Flat Earth?  (Read 6918 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

patrick jane

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 7347
  • Karma: +1010/-0
  • Research Jesus Christ - Research Flat Earth
  • Location: Homeless in God's Flat Earth
  • Referrals: 40
    • Theology Forums
Re: Can You Debunk Flat Earth?
« Reply #26 on: March 20, 2019, 06:47:23 am »
1. In 1905, Einstein added time dilation to length contraction because it was required to fit his theory, not because he “discovered”  it. It has since been applied  to everything under  the sun so  that  the Einstein advocates can claim that everything works by SRT. So let’s assume that the GPS satellites are in an inertial frame. The fact is, the light beams traveling east-to-west are faster by 50ns than the beams traveling west-to-east. But according to SRT, there should beno difference of the two beams since both are in an inertial frame.  (And if they are not in an inertial frame, then SRT cannot be applied). So, in order to hide this discrepancy to save SRT, the GPS computers are preprogrammed with a Sagnac correction so that it appears that the east bound beam is going the same speed as the westbound beam, and voila! SRT is “proved.”

2. EINSTEIN SAID THAT IF THERE WAS ANY ETHER IN SPACE, THEN HIS THEORY IS NULLIFIED. HE SAID : If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then Relativity is wrong.  (Einstein ; The Life and Times, p. 107.) So, Einstein simply dismissed the fractional ether drift of MMX as a mere artifact. But the sad fact is, scientifically speaking, artifacts would not have appeared in all the dozens of interferometer experiments performed over the next 80 years.

In 1921, Einstein wrote to a friend that if "the Miller experiments" produced positive results *"the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."

Miller's experiments produced consistently positive results.

The experiments of Sagnac and Michelson & Gale are rarely mentioned. Until recently it was quite difficult to find a reference to them. As Dean Turner pointed out "One may scan Einstein's writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said of general physics text-books and of the McGraw-Hill Encyclopaedia of Science and Technology...Such an oversight constitutes a stinging indictment of professional scientific reporting". It is indeed quite difficult to get information on these experiments. They seem to be such an embarrassment to relativity that those who know about them would rather not say too much.

Quite a number of relativity experts, however, do know about them, and when pressed many admit that they show the Special Theory of Relativity (the theory taught to all science students, and the basis for much of "modern physics") to be inadequate.

3. Not only has General Relativity failed to provide adequate answers for stellar aberration, rotation, and
action-at-a-distance (that is, without resorting to Mach’s “distant rotating masses”), Van  Flandern
reminds us that…

“…it is not widely appreciated that this [General Relativity] is a purely mathematical model,
lacking a physical mechanism to initiate motion. For example, if a “space-time manifold” (like
the rubber sheet) exists near a source of mass, why would a small particle placed at rest in that
manifold  (on  the  rubber  sheet) begin to move toward the source mass? Indeed, why would
curvature of the manifold even have a sense of “down” unless some force such as gravity
already existed. Logically, the small particle at rest on a curved manifold would have no reason
to end its rest unless a force acted on it.”

 “…all existing experimental evidence requires the action of fields to be conveyed much faster
than lightspeed. This situation is ironic because the reason why the geometric interpretation
gained ascendancy over the field interpretation is that the implied faster-than-light action of
fields appeared to allow causality violations [e.g., moving backwards in time, according to the
principles of Special Relativity]….Yet the field interpretation of General Relativity requires
faster than light propagation. So if Special Relativity were a correct model of reality, the field
interpretation would violate the causality principle, which is why it fell from popularity.”

4. It is rather interesting that Relativists, on the one hand, claim that light is limited to 186,000 mps in Special Relativity, but admit that Special Relativity does not incorporate gravity or inertial forces.

On the other hand, they claim gravity is limited to the speed of light because Special Relativity  says nothing can go  faster  than light. But if Special Relativity has nothing to do with gravity, then how can Special Relativity claim that gravity’s speed
is limited to light speed? 
 
Moreover, in General Relativity, light, and we presume gravity, is not limited to 186,000 mps, and that is
because General Relativity deals with frames that  include gravity and inertial forces. But if gravity itself
is a non-inertial frame, then how can it be limited to 186,000 mps by Special Relativity which only deals
with inertial frames? This shows that the two theories of Relativity contradict themselves.

5. Einstein and Infield wrote in The Evolution of Physics (1938) :

“…the theory of relativity resembles a building consisting of two separate storeys (sic), the special  theory and the general theory. The special theory, on which the general theory rests, applies to all physical phenomena with the exception of gravitation.”

On this Dr. Kelly comments :

“So, if the special theory loses its basis, the general theory is also without foundation.”

The only original big idea in “Einstein's” so-called theory of general relativity was curved space. Yet through the 1980s and 1990s, and  today with the Hubble space telescope, astronomers have methodically and painstakingly developed three-dimensional atlases of the universe. However, they  have detected no curvature of space. Theoretical physicist Paul LaViolette observes :

“If space were curved by even the slightest amount, evidence of this would have shown up in astronomical surveys. When the data are checked, however, no evidence of curvature is found. Observations of the density of galaxies found at distant locations of the universe indicate that space is Euclidian out to the farthest limits of observation.”
 









Please Subscribe! Join my Free Forums for discussion, debate and fellowship
PayPal Donations : https://paypal.me/ThankYou3169
Flat Earth Forums : https://3169.createaforum.com/index.php?action=forum
Theology Forums :  https://theologyforums.com/index.php
YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpzjN3dF-_PnAc81SQVjqhg?view_as=subscriber
YouTube Back-Up Channel :  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMt94y3SDxgjpoucj6Yc_Xg
BitChute : https://www.bitchute.com/channel/xUZJpNWUz2T4/
Pinterest : https://www.pinterest.com/patrickjane3169/
Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-jane-833769164/
Hearing, believing and trusting the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross; His death, burial and resurrection for the forgiveness of sins and REPENTING, seals us with that Holy Spirit of Promise - EPHESIANS 1:10-14 KJV - The Lord is not slack concerning His promise. 2 Peter 3:9 KJV - 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 KJV - Ephesians 1:10-14 KJV - Romans 10:9-10 KJV - Romans 10:13 - Romans 10:17 - Ephesians 1:7 KJV - Colossians 1:14 KJV -


Copyright Disclaimer: All audio and music belongs to the owner/creator. This is a non-profit. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
109 Replies
20149 Views
Last post June 29, 2020, 06:41:19 pm
by patrick jane
22 Replies
6105 Views
Last post July 03, 2020, 11:43:04 pm
by patrick jane
31 Replies
7350 Views
Last post June 22, 2020, 04:23:04 am
by patrick jane
18 Replies
1897 Views
Last post June 22, 2019, 07:40:37 pm
by Bladerunner
5 Replies
2470 Views
Last post January 29, 2020, 11:25:04 pm
by Bladerunner

+-Recent Topics

Trump 2020 - Winning !!! by patrick jane
Today at 03:40:57 pm

Politics Today by patrick jane
Today at 03:40:37 pm

Re: Trump 2020 - Winning !!! by patrick jane
Today at 03:40:15 pm

Re: Politics Today by patrick jane
Today at 03:39:56 pm

VIDEO MINISTRY BY LION OF JUDAH by patrick jane
Today at 03:36:42 pm

Scriptures - Verse Of The Day and Discussion by Chaplain Mark Schmidt
Today at 02:45:16 pm

Chaplain's Chat by patrick jane
Today at 02:43:32 pm

What does it mean to read scripture as a literalist? by Chaplain Mark Schmidt
Today at 01:52:48 pm

What is sin? by Lori Bolinger
Today at 12:34:03 pm

Christianity Today Magazine - July 2020 by patrick jane
Today at 10:59:46 am

Did Jesus Die on a Friday? by rstrats
Today at 06:35:54 am

CITIZEN MAN on YOUTUBE by patrick jane
Today at 04:17:01 am

Antichrist to be revealed first by Bladerunner
July 05, 2020, 10:41:38 pm

THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS by Bladerunner
July 05, 2020, 10:17:25 pm

Bronfman, MEGA, paedophilia, NXIVM, and Libya by Bladerunner
July 05, 2020, 05:26:59 pm

Anglo-American Narco World Order by Bladerunner
July 05, 2020, 05:22:51 pm

Your Favorite Music, Images and Memes by patrick jane
July 05, 2020, 01:06:31 pm

PULL MY PORK BBQ YOUTUBE CHANNEL by patrick jane
July 05, 2020, 11:14:17 am