Wrong. Refute my points or shut the hell up.
Make points worth refuting.
If I said that God was influencing time and space according to those calculations then that would be just as credible as the theory itself. We DO NOT KNOW what is infulencing them.
Two hydrogens and one oxygen don't make water! For all we know it's twenty uraniums that are invisible, unseeable, and break down without cost to energy into a water molecule spontaneously!
Just because you can toss out unsubstantiated bad claims doesn't mean that the best theory is wrong. No scientific assertion presumes 100% correctness anyway so your appeal to
THE GREAT UNKNOWN is rather off the mark.
Time is just an attribute we set to measure the speed of things.
That an atomic clock or even light is affected by gravitational forces and movement is not something unusual.
You have a mass, an atom, and you are putting it through in "relative" measure such substantial changes of environment that something must happen with it and thus "time" appears to change. But it is not time, it is the the nature of the mass that has changed.
We know much to little about the dark energy and dark matter that surrounds the planet and everything else and how it affects what ever passes through or near it.
The problem with measuring time with light is obvious. The basic fallacy of the theory lies in the concept that the fastest thing in the world equals time. This is so banal and stupid that I lack words for it. So if we were to discover something faster, suddenly time itself would change? What a load of horsehockey. This is the problem. This affects not only light experiments but all other experiments because for example just like with the atom clock you are changing the environment of your test object and then claiming you have changed time, just because its speed has changed. It is quite clear that light is bent by gravity and what ever is between the two points of reference. This is why the nordic people could discover Iceland.
This does not mean that TIME is being bent.
I see, you know nothing about it and still presume like you can talk about it. God, but there are too many of your kind on these forums.
I mean, look at this crap: "The basic fallacy of the theory lies in the concept that the fastest thing in the world equals time." Somebody slept through high school physics, I see! And probably more than just that.
You're blasting theoretical physicists for their bad sense and invoking
dark matter? Geez you're out of touch. Your assertions - well, what I assume must be your assertions since honestly I can barely make heads or tails of this word jambalaya - relies on all the bad faith you accuse theoretical physicists of having and then some. Also a hefty dose of ignorance, which I hear is useful
when trying to talk about stuff way and far above your own comprehension.
I'll break down the essential takeaway of the spacetime theory for you: Light doesn't have mass. So when gravity influences it - a phenomenon we have measured
countless times - we infer that what it's doing is warping spacetime. Why it's spacetime and not just space I couldn't tell you, but what I
can tell you is it's a tried and tested notion and the combination of space and time into a single manifold has represented such an acute insight into the world of physics that it launched our understanding forward on innumerable fronts.
I have a feeling you've encountered this argument and what I can
sort of glean from your post is some flailing in the contrary direction, but all of your points are incoherent or poorly reasoned and hardly demonstrate a qualitative refutation of general relativity. Admittedly I'm cheating a bit by having the entire body of knowledge acquired thus far at my beck and call, and surprisingly enough it corroborates my point (or I may have that backwards), but this is only because I don't have whatever peculiar disorder has deluded you into believing that theoretical physics is wrong because reasons (reasons here being that it's the conceit of authority figures, and I'll go out on a limb here and guess that you also think Johnson killed JFK and we didn't really land on the moon). I guess I shouldn't worry for I'm sure you'll settle on some trite epistemology to argue that we can't know
anything for sure and so your jumbled out-of-left-field explanation for the relativity phenomenon
must be correct.
Seriously, take your amazing findings before the faculty of physics at MIT, or better yet those banal and stupid eggheads at CERN and let them know they're doing it all wrong. I'm sure you'll have a freaking blast when they laugh you out of the room because somehow those elitist scientists just couldn't accept the remarkable insight of an uneducated nobody who talks before he thinks.
Or, more likely, when they humor your assertion and respond with an earnest attempt at conversation and explanation, you are humbled by their generosity in dealing with stubborn jackasses.
) nowadays. Pretty much all of electrodynamics and particle physics quantum field theory doesn't make any sense without it.
