Nostr Web Client

There are constraints as to what we can individually prove ourselves. I cannot say with absolute certainty that it’s flat, but I am quite sure it’s not an “oblate sphere” hurtling through space.

The 3 probes sent to the Lagrange points over the past 3 decades all provided the same data, dubbed the axis of evil, that shows us that Earth is in the middle of everything. They explain it away by coming up with nonsense ala “dark matter”.

Red and blue shift, we only ever see red shift.

There is no exclusive evidence that the earth orbits the sun.

According to the Science, the universe is expanding at 4x the speed of light. Yet the speed of light is supposed to be the fastest constant we have. How do they explain this? By interchanging general and special relativity whenever it suits them.

Relativity and the Lorentz contraction were just the next in line to explain away the failed Michelson-Morley experiment. Imagine believing objects are physically contracting in the direction of motion, but if you’re moving in the same direction you cannot perceive this contraction because it’s all relative. To believe this, that means you have to believe solid physical objects are coincidentally contracting to make them appear the same. It’s just an illusion, they claim. Or, it’s what we observe and their theories are bullshit.

All these convoluted theories to explain their negative results over and over, when the simpler and more logical answers appear to be something many won’t entertain.

Byrger Tidesson 2y ago

the speed of light is the speed limit in space. The space itself can expand at whatever the speed it want.

relativity is strange (including distortion of bodies moving) but it make sense. It forecasted many phenomenons before we observed them (and this makes of it a good theory).

I have not a physic background, but I have studied it by myself. To the extend I can understand it, works well.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Sovereign Being 2y ago

It has to work well to be believable. However, there are endless issues to which they are forever presenting other theories to explain these issues away. Dark matter has been a problem for 90 years. It's hilarious, and it's a dead-end theory which many physicists are distancing themselves from.

Special relativity was invented to keep the Earth moving, no matter what the experiments showed. For the first time, ether was said to be nonexistent.

Here, speed of light is a constant that never changes. To get these measurements, we need to increase the increase the length and mass of a moving object, and dilate the time.

General relativity makes the speed of light variable, but it is at odds with special relativity in that "space without ether is unthinkable" (direct quote).

So when a problem comes up, they will selectively apply one or the other depending on which will provide more of a believable answer that fits their theories.

I for one don't believe in the speed of light as described. Light is perceived, and I believe it is an excitation of ether which is the background medium that is ever present which produces light. I no longer believe in the accelerative expansion of a universe.

Byrger Tidesson 2y ago

our understanding of the world keep changing while we increase our horizon and our instruments allow us to see more precisely and farer.

There are circumstances where relativity don't work, and that's fine to me.

Newtonian mechanics worked well until we found out circumstances where it stop working.

Dark matter is just an hypothesis, but more or less it works.

Our theories are very far from being perfect and a true scientist will admit it without any problem.

Are there better theories that explain universe other than the "mainstream" ones?