Search results

If we just accept everything that's presented in the videos then there is nothing to debate, correct? Particle theory, aka, time and material dilation, is counter intuitive, aka, irrational, correct? I would suppose that we should understand why. Lets begin at the beginning, there is no such...

Neither time nor velocity is measured by moving sound waves or moving light waves. Time and velocity are measured by what is not moving. For us it's an immovable earth or an immovable sun.

A clock in motion vs a clock not in motion is a fallacy in the video. The example tells us how sound waves are affected by motion, it tells us nothing about time.

How does a pencil shrink? How does a background grow?

The pencil never changes size because we all know that we see in "perspective". There are laws of perspective, how we see things far away. The example in the video disregards this and so the pencil does not really shrink--more relativity stupidity.

Good to be back

Thanks!

Time is not material, not made of particles; it cannot be seen, either through a telescope or a microscope; it cannot be weighed or measured; it cannot expand, contract, or bend. The science of special relativity is as irrational as the theology of a timeless God. Special relativity means...

Do you still drive truck? --Dave

And if someone jumps off that train (not so as to badly injure himself) onto what he perceives is a moving earth will his reality change? Will his perception now be that the train is moving and not the earth? Or, will he continue to think the earth is still moving and the train is not? --Dave...

The model is not the perception of reality we get from earth on earth. I don't actually see the universe when see model, I see a model. On earth my perception (what I see and experience) is a flat motionless earth. By seeing this model I'm asked to imagine the universe in not what I see and...

This is why relativity is irrational and not reality. In reality The train is moving. You're on the train moving with it. The earth is not moving. --Dave

This is about as irrational a comment on what I have said that I have ever seen. --Dave

I don't know what more I can say on this subject. I understand how motion is defined in physics and all of you are very good in physics. And you are all correct about how everything works in a heliocentric universe. You all have much more knowledge and understanding about this then I do. You...

Fish look closer and larger in water from outside of the water. Fish look larger in water from water as well. --Dave

No, it effects how we imagine the cosmos to be. By perception we mean what we all see and experience from and on the earth. This would effect our perception only if we were actually out there in space and could see all the planets just as presented in the model. --Dave

I think the video speaks for itself and the conclusion that the Lunar Lander would have no dust on the landing pods and no sign of any disturbance under it from the lander's thruster is nonsense. This is especially evident when you see how easily the so call lunar surface is kicked up by the...

I agree, there's no such thing as an "ultimate reference point" in the heliocentric model. In the geocentric and flat earth model there is an "ultimate reference point". --Dave

Yes, I said this website showed both what a flat earth model can and cannot explain. I should have said what the "current" flat earth model can and cannot explain. It explains a lot more than most people think. --Dave

By definition a stationary, immovable flat earth does not move and logically is the absolute. Motion is what is moving as opposed to what is not moving. Motion is not what is moving in relation to what else is moving, that's irrational. Modern physics is relative--irrational. --Dave