The Instigator
zidzad1
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
9spaceking
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Relativity Is Wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
9spaceking
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/26/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,832 times Debate No: 53431
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (32)
Votes (1)

 

zidzad1

Pro

I propose that the theory of both special and general relativity is wrong.
For anyone that wishes to participate the rules are:
MUST be scientifically literate.
MUST have participated in atleast one debate.
MUST have a good understanding of physics and relativity.
No complex mathematics is required.

Thank you and good luck ~~~~
9spaceking

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
zidzad1

Pro

First of all I would like to thank my opponent for accepting the debate and I look forward to reading his arguments and points.
I would like to start off by defining some terms;

1.
Relative
ADJECTIVE
"Considered in relation or in proportion to something else."

2.
Relativity
NOUN
"The dependence of various physical phenomena on relative motion of the observer and the observed objects, especially regarding the nature and behaviour of light, space, time, and gravity."


The reason I chose to define these terms was to show that I am able to differentiate between them as I will be using them quite often.

Relativity is a big field with many physicists continuously working to successfully find more “evidence” to prove the theory. Hopefully throughout this debate I will attempt to explore the flaws in relativity and why it has become the biggest drawback in scientific history. Since this is a relatively short debate I will cover 3 major issues in relativity (all in different arguments).

In chronological order:

  • Relativity And Time
  • Relativity And Gravity
  • Relativity And Motion

Let’s begin with the first issue; time.

Time is known to a useful tool in our everyday lives, but physicists believe that time is actually a part of our universe. I propose that time is NOT part of our universe and just a tool to merely describe rotation. There are many papers which perfectly explain this although have been disregarded as being “crack pottery” even though they provide evidence. The only true unit in our universe is DISTANCE. When we measure time, we measure rotation. Consequently when we measure rotation we measure distance. Here is a quote from Miles Mathis’ paper: A Revaluation Of Time.

I maintain that time is simply a measurement of movement. This is its most direct definition. Whenever we measure time, we measure movement. We cannot measure time without measuring movement. The concept of time is dependent upon the concept of movement. Without movement, there is no time. Every clock measures movement: the vibration of a caesium atom, the swing of pendulum, the movement of a second hand.” Now hold on, I am not implying that time has no use in our world however it has no significance in our UNIVERSE. This brings us to the concept of velocity. Let me be clear velocity and time is actually the same thing, unit less. Here is Miles Mathis’ perfect explanation of velocity “The measurement of time is necessary to the measurement of velocity. It may be that time was not even "invented," in the modern sense, until someone first thought of the idea of velocity. Velocity is the measurement of the change in position of one thing (the object in question) relative to the change in position of another thing (the cesium atom, or the pendulum, etc.). Once you have conceived of the idea of velocity in this way, you realize that it can be measured in only one way: Compare the unknown movement to a known movement. That is, find something in your world that moves as uniformly as possible, and let that be your clock. Then compare your unknown movement to the movement of your clock. That is what velocity is.” This again is also a measurement of distance and can be expressed within the following equation:

Velocity = Distance / Time = Distance / Invented Distance = (Unitless Scale)

(Extracted from UDT)

Now here is the part you have all been waiting for, the proof:

In this part I will attempt to debunk two famous experiments preformed to test the space-time model.

The first being;

Gravity Probe B Experiment

Gravity Probe B (GP-B) is a satellite-based mission which launched on 20 April 2004 on a Delta II rocket the spaceflight phase lasted until 2005; its aim was to measure space-time curvature near the Earth. Even though it has been PROVEN that electromagnetic fields affect gyroscopes and clocks.

This brings us onto our next experiment; Hafele–Keating experiment.

This famous experiment, used to test time dilation failed miserably in its attempt to explain general relativity. By placing an atomic clock into a plane they observed that the clock has loss / gained a couple of nanoseconds. But this only happens because the atomic clocks are under a LOWER electromagnetic field then on earth which yet again DOES affect clocks, gyroscopes and the whole lot.

I will end with some quotes that you might think about extracted from the paper(s) thanks,

“Time is a tool with a constant unit, or an invented physical unit based on a relative measurement of distance, where there is a uniform movement. This tool can be used to measure the velocity or speed of an object in such way that change or differences are described as comparatively relative motion. Time can be considered, therefore, a measurement of relative movement. Velocity is a relative measurement for a distance travelled per unit of time. Time is a distance.” - Abdulsalam Almayahi UDT

“It is also clear at a glance that the numbers in this experiment were pushed to provide confirmation. I

can't tell you exactly how from this article, since they don't provide the math, but we may assume they

did it in the same way they did it in the Hafele-Keating experiment. I have already exposed the Hafele-Keating Experiment as a fraud, and in that experiment they do the same thing they do here: they claim

great accuracy in measurement, but make a hash out of the basic theory and of all rules of science. The

Hafele-Keating experiment is the one where the airplanes with atomic clocks flew around the Earth,

and the clocks gained or lost tiny fractions of seconds compared to clocks on the ground. But there, as

here, the non-zero result is just assumed to be caused by gravity, with no effort to consider, discuss,

mask, or limit any other effects. Just as the most obvious example, the E/M field is utterly ignored in

both experiments! This despite the fact that the E/M field is known to have chirality, and is known to affect gyroscopes and clocks!” -Miles Mathis



SOURCES WILL BE IN COMMENT SECTION

9spaceking

Con

Before I rebut, I will make my opening statements.
Proof of relativity--from http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Albert Einstein proposed three tests of general relativity, subsequently called the classical tests of general relativity, in 1916:[1]
1. The perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit
2. The deflection of light by the Sun
3. The gravitational redshift of light"
And he also says "The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible". So, what Sir Einstein is saying, is that if even one of these three is disproved, then his theory is wrong.
As cited by the same wikipedia page, the first point is proven in this chart:

Sources of the precession of perihelion for Mercury
Amount (arcsec/Julian century)Cause
531.63 ±0.69[1] Gravitational tugs of the other planets
0.0254 Oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment)
42.98 ±0.04[2] General relativity
574.64±0.69 Total
574.10±0.65[1] Observed


Point two is proven by this part of the passage: "...The first observation of light deflection was .... performed in May 1919 by Arthur Eddington and his collaborators during a total solar eclipse,[3] so that the stars near the Sun could be observed. Observations were made simultaneously in the cities of Sobral, Ceará, Brazil and in São Tomé and Príncipe on the west coast of Africa."

Point three is proven by "it was....conclusively tested when the Pound–Rebka experiment in 1959 measured the relative redshift of two sources situated at the top and bottom of Harvard University's Jefferson tower using an extremely sensitive phenomenon called the Mössbauer effect.[4][5] The result was in excellent agreement with general relativity".

[1] http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
[2] http://classroom.sdmesa.edu...
[3] Dyson, F. W.; Eddington, A. S., Davidson C. (1920). "A determination of the deflection of light by the Sun's gravitational field, from observations made at the total eclipse of 29 May 1919". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 220A: 291–333.
[4] http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
[5] http://adsabs.harvard.edu...;

Now, onto my rebuttals!
I agree with your definitions.
TIME: Yes, the 2cd experiment failed, because of the electromagnetic field on earth. However, you didn't say how the 1st experiment had failed. In addition, you have to prove relativity wrong. Being unable to prove something exist does not mean it doesn't exist, as one such case being god. But this is not a religious debate, this is a scientific debate. I was only giving an example where BoP didn't have to be presented. It must be noted that I actually provided solid evidence for relativity.

GRAVITY: You did nothing to prove this wrong. I suppose you will do this later. In the mean time I have already proven the gravitational pull and the "redshift of light".

MOTION: Again, you probably meant to address this later. In contrast, I proved this correct right above, with the gravitational motion of Mars and all that stuff.
Onto you, pro!
Debate Round No. 2
zidzad1

Pro

In opposition to your structure, I would like to begin by rebutting then making my points.


You start off your first point by saying that Albert Einstein proposed three classical tests of relativity and if disproven the theory would be proved wrong. However Michio Kaku another mainstream scientist who actually worships Einstein says otherwise. “If any theory, even relativity fails under one test then the theory is WRONG”


-Michio Kaku (The Universe In A Nutshell)


However I will still go on and give you a simple explanation on why Einstein’s eclipse experiment actually happened without the consequences of relativity.


Gravity IS electromagnetic (you will see how later on) and so is LIGHT. When light, passes an object with big mass such as the sun, it gets attracted due to gravity but so does the star or planet. However it’s a very small amount. This happens because light, being electromagnetic (which is the source of gravity) has very small mass and that’s why it attracts the object by a very small amount. However the star on the other hand has a much bigger mass and that’s why it gravitational attraction is larger.


I should also point out that my opponent ADMITS to the uncertainty of time being either a phenomena or merely a tool to describe motion. He does this in the following passage: “In addition, you have to prove relativity wrong. Being unable to prove something exists does not mean it doesn't exist, as one such case being god. But this is not a religious debate, this is a scientific debate. I was only giving an example where BoP didn't have to be presented. It must be noted that I actually provided solid evidence for relativity.”


My opponent is implying that you don’t need any EVIDENCE to say that time is a phenomena in nature and should base our understanding on physics on something that may not exist.


You also said that I failed to prove the first experiment even though I mentioned it failed due to the electromagnetic influence, which not surprisingly was the cause of both failures.


This brings me on to my next point: Gravity


In the paper UDT By Abdulsalam Al-Mayahi he describes gravity perfectly. “Gravity between any two objects is an attraction Force due to the pull interaction between both the electric and magnetic fields of at least two objects, and this Force is normally perpendicular to both fields.”


Note: This DOES follow the inverse square law.


The space-time model for gravity has no proof whatsoever to back it up and is not sufficient enough for our understanding of gravity.


The main problem with modern day physics is that most experiments are being performed on earth which has a high electromagnetic field which affects the result. Experiments include testing the speed of light and many more which is included in Abdulsalam’s paper.


The proof lies in the paper itself but it has too many characters to be posted onto this debate. So I will link the pages that should give you a better understanding at the end of my argument.


I would like to end my argument with a quote from the paper:


At the present time, physicists experience a number of problems. In physics, a “Field” refers to a region which is affected by a Force, such as electricity, magnetism or gravity. As you know, the brilliant


Scottish mathematician and theoretical


scientist James Clerk


Maxwell


wrote in 1861, ["On physical lines of force”], (Maxwell, 1861) and in 1865 [“A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic Field”] (Maxwell, 1865). Oliver Heaviside reformulated these equations and they were then confirmed by Heinrich Hertz


in 1887 (Hertz,1887).


To a certain extent, Maxwell equations can describe almost every aspect of electromagnetism and that was the First “Field Theory”. Albert Einstein's “General Theory of Relativity”, which deals with gravity, became the Second “Field Theory” (although it has not yet been verified). Einstein failed to prove that electromagnetism and gravity were different aspects of a single fundamental field. This issue got even cloudier when Quantum Theory became involved, as it made everything more complicated without actually solving many serious issues. In contrast, my


UDT


allows the exact speed of light in a zero-Gravitational field to be determined, and what I call the “Maxwell Speed of Light“, can be measured and verified experimentally using many different methods.”




Sources:


Michio Kaku – The universe in a nutshell: https://www.youtube.com...



UDT – GRAVITY:


http://www.scribd.com...



UDT – PROOF OF ELECTROMAGNETISM BEING THE ONLY FORCE IN NATURE (WORK DOWNWARDS): http://www.scribd.com...



UDT – GRAVITATIONAL DIAGRAM OF THE EARTH:


http://gyazo.com...




9spaceking

Con

Your big body of arguments crucially hang on the string of needing the experiments to fail in order to disprove relativity. However, experiments like those are erroneous and don't compare to the experiments I presented above, the modern proving of the theory of relativity.
At the time of Michio, of course, relativity wasn't verified. It was only during the last century or so that these experiments were conducted. If you can find a (credible) modern source that comes after my experiments were conducted, and that source proves my experiments invalid, then you can correctly state relativity is wrong. Without something to disprove relativity, and the tests I used to prove it correctly, you cannot assume relativity is wrong.
Onto you, pro.
Debate Round No. 3
zidzad1

Pro

I would like to start off by pointing out that I will be altering my structure and will make my points about "relativity and motion"
in my next argument due to my limited schedule.

Your glib argument consists of criticisms about the experimental evidence I have provided, where you fail to provide any rational explanation and new arguments. You also point out that the experiments I provided do not compare your so called "modern day proving" of relativity. This is an example of what I call rubbish talk, where you attempt to disregard my points in order to try and make me look bad. You also point out that at the time of Michio Kaku, relativity wasn't verified although the video was created on 15 Aug 2012, so we can safely dismiss this. Towards the end your argument starts to collapse and make absolutely no sense and again is another example of rubbish talk.

Your quote "At the time of Michio, of course, relativity wasn't verified." speaks in volumes and is evidence that you didn't even attempt to click one of the links I provided.

I ask of you to take your time and review your points. But please in your next argument write something that is worth debating.

Onto you,
con.
9spaceking

Con

I am sorry about my rushed arguments, I have very limited time to type them up. On an iPad.
Let me explain why your arguments are incorrect: although you have given an experiment where relativity could not be proved, you did not try to refute my proved experiments shown above.
Your YouTube video does summarize Einstein's points about relativity and how they may be awry in some cases, but as proved upon my experiments, relativity is true. You have not really given reasons why my experiments are flawed, but rather, you try to disprove other different experiments. That is irrelevant to this case and does not disprove relativity. In conclusion relativity is right.
Debate Round No. 4
zidzad1

Pro

I would like to start off by thanking my opponent for maintaining a healthy debate. Although towards the end his arguments started to collapse towards the end.

I am going to start off by making my argument titled "relativity and motion" or perspective (referance frames).

As a mathematical model the theory of special relativity isn’t even that bad in fact, it’s very nice to think about different concepts such as the speed of light, etc. The only problem that I and some other individuals have is that it is being applied to the physics that we base our understanding of the universe on. For example: Gravity, Electromagnetism, etc. These concepts should only be based upon experimental evidence as well as common sense. I propose that ‘relativity’ is simply perspective and is exaggerated as being a phenomena in physics. In fact I am not the only person to suggest this; Hedrick Lorentz suggested that special relativity is simply a mathematical trick (Year 1895). An example of this would be reference frames; relativity tells us that there is no such thing as an immovable object. Although this is debateable, their explanation for it is ridiculous. Relativity states that an immovable object cannot be because if you move relative to it the object will start moving. Not only is this a ridiculous idea, but it is being applied to explain the forces in nature and describe the universe, when this concept is actually pure perspective and I will explain why. First let’s define relative: considered in relation or in proportion to something else. Now imagine you are riding a bike relative (compared) to a car, the car appears to be moving from your perspective, but does that mean the car is actually moving? Of course not this is what’s called absolutism. This is exactly what relativity is, and unfortunately it is being applied to describe the universe, especially to derive the theory of everything although a fantastic model has already been released but it has been disregarded because it contradicts relativity, however I will not go into details of how it does this. I (and many other scientists) propose that there is no such thing as relativity and that the universe is absolute, there is perspective yes but that has no significance in our universe. If you are moving relative or move past an object from your perspective the object seems to be moving although you are the one that’s actually moving, however a stationary observer will see that you are the one that’s moving. However saying that the object is moving just because it looks like it’s moving doesn’t mean that the object has a velocity. The result of this play of perspective is not a phenomenon, it relies on the way us humans observe things using our eyes and our unique field of view. If we had eyes at the back of our heads things would most likely be different.

Representation : http://gyazo.com...;

I believe when it comes to describing our universe we should think of our universe from a stationary perspective rather than relative. When describing forces such as gravity, there is usually one part that we struggle to get our head around. I believe this is due to the scientific techniques we are currently using to conduct experiments, hypotheses’, etc. I would also like to point out that some things in relativity have no significance in physics or even science such as the principle that states “if you have two objects and nothing else, then it’s not possible to tell which object is moving and which object is standing still.” This has absolutely nothing to do with physics and happens due to the biological features of a human. We need to accept that there is a different way to view our universe and shouldn’t just be based on the perspective of a human.Special relativity is the idea that length and time are perceived differently by different observers. I believe this has no significance in our universe, why? This’ how: by length and time they are relating to the phenomena’s known as length contraction and time dilation first off, time is originally distance as explained in the equation above, although time dilation does appear to have affect it is for different reasons as you will see later in the paper. This leaves us with length contraction which does occur in nature; however occurs because of different reasons rather than the ones they provided. We need to consider the likelyhood of extra terestriall life before we make such claims.

Miles mathis explains how length contraction works : http://milesmathis.com...;

As for my rebuttals:

I appreciate that you're your doing your best to provide an argument, however I put a 72 hour reply time for a reason. In the latest argument you provided it was as bad (if not worse) than the other one. Please take your time with your new argument.

I would like to finish off by asking you everyone a question.

Without movement, will there be time?

feel free to post your answers in the comment section and good luck to my opponent on his next argument aswell as the voters who hopefully I have managed to change their mind.

onto you, con.

9spaceking

Con

Your dramatic paragraph only helps support my argument. It is because each of us humans have a unique field of fiew, and because such, everything is relative to the person who is doing whatever, in this case, observing the car.
As for the paragraphs concerning time and length, how does relativity contrast this? The two ideas don't clash against each other. Time is based on which planet is observed to be self-rotating and how long it takes to go around the sun. How did you disprove relativity??

"Without movement, will there be time?" Well, based on our current observations and definitions, no, there will be no more time in a technical term. Nevertheless the clocks will still go on in different time zones, and we can still use this "time" to our advantage, except with no Day-Lights Savings or anything like that.

In conclusion my opponent has failed to support why even one my experiments fail. He did use examples of other experiments that failed to prove relativity, but the core elements of my arguments stand upon my experiments, which my opponent did not rebut. Let me repeat them here for emphasis.

Proof of relativity--from http://en.wikipedia.org......
"Albert Einstein proposed three tests of general relativity, subsequently called the classical tests of general relativity, in 1916:[1]
1. The perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit
2. The deflection of light by the Sun
3. The gravitational redshift of light"
And he also says "The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible". So, what Sir Einstein is saying, is that if even one of these three is disproved, then his theory is wrong.
As cited by the same wikipedia page, the first point is proven in this chart:

Sources of the precession of perihelion for Mercury
Amount (arcsec/Julian century)Cause
531.63 ±0.69[1] Gravitational tugs of the other planets
0.0254 Oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment)
42.98 ±0.04[2] General relativity
574.64±0.69 Total
574.10±0.65[1] Observed


Point two is proven by this part of the passage: "...The first observation of light deflection was .... performed in May 1919 by Arthur Eddington and his collaborators during a total solar eclipse,[3] so that the stars near the Sun could be observed. Observations were made simultaneously in the cities of Sobral, Ceará, Brazil and in São Tomé and Príncipe on the west coast of Africa."

Point three is proven by "it was....conclusively tested when the Pound–Rebka experiment in 1959 measured the relative redshift of two sources situated at the top and bottom of Harvard University's Jefferson tower using an extremely sensitive phenomenon called the Mössbauer effect.[4][5] The result was in excellent agreement with general relativity".

[1] http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
[2] http://classroom.sdmesa.edu...;
[3] Dyson, F. W.; Eddington, A. S., Davidson C. (1920). "A determination of the deflection of light by the Sun's gravitational field, from observations made at the total eclipse of 29 May 1919". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 220A: 291–333.
[4] http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
[5] http://adsabs.harvard.edu...;

I repeat: my opponent has given irrelevant arguments that failed to rebut mine.
Vote me.
Debate Round No. 5
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ASK HIM!! How should i know why he voted for the guy who didn't know nothin' about relativity?
Posted by zidzad1 2 years ago
zidzad1
but it does, thats why im saying blade is biased.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
yeah, but blade says "his experimental evidence does not defeat relativity" referring to you
Posted by zidzad1 2 years ago
zidzad1
heres a quote for you:

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

-Albert Einstein
Posted by zidzad1 2 years ago
zidzad1
Thats why im here, just because wikipedia says it's true im here to prove it wrong. You still haven't rebbuted to my argument by the way when i have rebutted to yours.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
lol, I don't know. I just posted the Wikipedia proof that relativity is true and threw your arguments down the toilet or out of the window for no good reason.
Posted by zidzad1 2 years ago
zidzad1
Im not asking blade, im asking you.
Posted by zidzad1 2 years ago
zidzad1
Im not asking blade, im asking you.
Posted by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
ask Blade if he thinks so
Posted by zidzad1 2 years ago
zidzad1
I proved time is just a tool you cant and still haven't rebutted to that successfully.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
zidzad19spacekingTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides had some presentation issues, here, but overall, Pro had the BoP to demonstrate the resolution. Con presented evidence that the resolution was false, and that relativity was true. Pro's arguments failed to adequately rebut them--his experimental evidence does not defeat relativity. As such, arguments to Con. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.