The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017

[MRC_Hans]

If you can tell me the unit for elastic space, you can mathematical unite gravity and the strong force.

No we can't. For two reasons:

It has nothing to do with the strong force.
There is no such thing as elastic space.

Matter and elastic space is woven together, that should be clear to you now

Why should it be clear? Because you say so? Bjarne, for "elastic space" to pull at matter (or vice versa, for matter to pull at "elastic space") they would have to be connected: Matter would have to hang on to space somehow, but that would mean it could not move freely through space. It would be stuck there. I told you this long ago, and then you invented RR, but that also only exists in your fantasy.

I will give a dame in the math.

Oh? How does she look?

The world will ignore purely mathematical evidence anyway. The dane HC Ørsted did his discovery without math too, - math first came with Maxwell, and you see there are no contradiction and electricity really doesn’t care.

Oersted, by pure accident, discovered that current in a wire creates a magnetic field. We danes are so proud of Oersted, but in reality he did not have much clue about what he has discovered. However, unlike certain other people , he did not start to fantasize, he simply described what he observed and left it to better men to figure out the details. You, Bjarne, have discovered exactly nothing, but you have made more and more fantastic fantasies about it.

Hans

 

[Daylightstar]

...
So piece by peice the old paradigm m ust come down.

When will you finally start? For years, it's nothing but whining and no action.
But to be fair to you, no one really expects you to be able to make any kind of meaningful contribution to science. Apparently, you just don't have it in you.

 

[Mudcat]

I suspect it's just that it's hard to understand and appears to defy common sense.

That's also what I don't get. Time flows differently between two objects going at different speeds to each other, flows more slowly the closer to the speed of light you get, and flows more slowly towards large wells of gravity. What's so hard to understand?

Note the use of the word 'simple' in Bjarne's latest post.

I'm not sure if it's because his first language isn't English (or at least that's what I assume because I have difficulty understanding his posts) or he just has a hard time communicating his hypothesis but I have a more difficult time understanding him than I do general relativity.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I'm not sure if it's because his first language isn't English (or at least that's what I assume because I have difficulty understanding his posts) or he just has a hard time communicating his hypothesis but I have a more difficult time understanding him than I do general relativity.

Well, that is because general relativity makes more sense than Bjarne....

However, Bjarne's first language is indeed not English, it's Danish, but then, so is mine.

Mileages vary, but I find it a little hard to understand that someone so bent on presenting the scientific break-through of the century would not take a bit of time with a dictionary and a spell-checker, just to make sure his message was intelligible.

Hans

 

[Pixel42]

That's also what I don't get. Time flows differently between two objects going at different speeds to each other, flows more slowly the closer to the speed of light you get, and flows more slowly towards large wells of gravity. What's so hard to understand?

Perhaps I should have said "hard to accept" rather than "hard to understand". Some people seem to react almost viscerally to anything which calls into question the direct experience of the world they get through their own senses. We see it a lot with all kinds of woo believers - any suggestion that their perception (of a ghost, UFO, dowsing, reading, homeopathic 'cure') might be mistaken appears to be regarded as deeply offensive and will be rejected out of hand. But I admit I'm reaching. It really is a puzzler.

 

[Bjarne]

No we can't. For two reasons:

It has nothing to do with the strong force.
There is no such thing as elastic space.

Why should it be clear? Because you say so? Bjarne, for "elastic space" to pull at matter (or vice versa, for matter to pull at "elastic space") they would have to be connected: Matter would have to hang on to space somehow, but that would mean it could not move freely through space. It would be stuck there. I told you this long ago, and then you invented RR, but that also only exists in your fantasy.

Oh? How does she look?

Oersted, by pure accident, discovered that current in a wire creates a magnetic field. We danes are so proud of Oersted, but in reality he did not have much clue about what he has discovered. However, unlike certain other people , he did not start to fantasize, he simply described what he observed and left it to better men to figure out the details. You, Bjarne, have discovered exactly nothing, but you have made more and more fantastic fantasies about it.
Hans

Let' say that SR will begin to fall apart within 2 years.
Exactly as I wrote.

Will the Michelson-Morley experiment interpretation still be correct?
Off course you will never admit even the possibility that the Michelson-Morley experiment interpretation could be wrong, - if you really could, - here you have it, - > the elastic Universe..

I did not invent it, it allready was here at the late 1800

I also think the day you see something really is wrong with SR you will search the internet for all kind of stupid explanation that in contrast, - not could predict what would happen to SR

You will never accept anything else as what the massive brainwashed majority believe is correct..

Such as that the ISS must have flown into different clouds of dark matter with different hocus pocus dark matter density.

Or it is the heat onboard and vibration and cosmic radiation and so on bla bla bla that must have disturb the clock.

Or that the clock on board is defect and a new must be brought on board.

It is simply IMPOSSIBLE I am right, - even when the prediction is correct, - you will say that the measured time according to the prediction I did was 0,00000073 second off and the ISS only "gained" 0.00000042 second, and therefore it’s only a accident I predicted what I did.

You will ignore that the inclination of the ISS also play a role to be 100% exact.

All I can say,, - wait and you will see.

And as I wrote stepwise we will begin to understand , - because if space is a elastic substance, how can matter then get involved in this substance and ""bend" it - rather stretch it..
You will see that the end for a dark and stupid paradigm is near.

 

[Daylightstar]

...

It is simply IMPOSSIBLE I am right, - even when the prediction is correct, - you will say that the measured time according to the prediction I did was 0,00000073 second and the ISS only "gained" 0.00000042 second, and therefore it’s only a accident I predicted what I did.

You will ignore that the inclination of the ISS also play a role to be 100% exact.

All I can see, wait and you will see.

Which prediction >exactly< are you making?

 

[Mudcat]

But I admit I'm reaching.

If you are, it's not too much of a stretch. How many times have we seen people get upset when it's explained that they are wrong when they say, for example, that they've seen a ghost? In their minds if someone says they're wrong than that automatically means they are being accused of lying. There is no third option.

Let' say that SR will begin to fall apart within 2 years.
Exactly as I wrote.

Only two sentences your entire post I really understood and all I have to say is that it's not happening.

 

[RussDill]

It's impossible that you are right because all forms of æther have been examined and have been found faulty. You form has earth dragging along some æther with it. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis 'Gravitational aether dragging'

I think this explains it best:

If earth drags aether with it, you'd expect to be able to point your telescope like in the animation on the right to see the orange star. But it doesn't work that way, you have to point your telescope like the one one the left.

You may also be interested in the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment, which unlike the Michelson-Morely experiment, directly addresses aether drag.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Let' say that SR will begin to fall apart within 2 years.
Exactly as I wrote.

No, let's not say that. You have predicted that for six years, now. Instead, it becomes confirmed again, and again.

Let's say instead that you provide some evidence.

When moving against north we will see a significant faster time as SR predict..

Tell me now how good you will understand SR, and tell me the consequences such large deviation that SR cannot not account for
I think you have no idea.

No, Bjarne, I have no idea where your dreams lead. Why should I?

It is simply IMPOSSIBLE I am right,

Glad to see you realize it.

All I can see, wait and you will see.

OK; fine, Bjarne! Let's wait and see. Bye, bye. See you in late 2017, then.

....Ehhh? I have a much better prediction:

Even though you just said "wait and see" you will continue posting nonsense, and when 2017 has passed and SR and GR have been confirmed once again, you will invent some new nonsense and some new excuse, like you did all the other times.

Now, let's see who is right. Good luck!

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Which prediction >exactly< are you making?

It depend of the exact inclination relative to the Dark Flow Axis
You can read it in the first post

 

[Bjarne]

It's impossible that you are right because all forms of æther have been examined and have been found faulty. You form has earth dragging along some æther with it. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_drag_hypothesis 'Gravitational aether dragging'

I think this explains it best:

[qimg]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Stellar_aberration_versus_the_dragged_aether.gif[/qimg]

If earth drags aether with it, you'd expect to be able to point your telescope like in the animation on the right to see the orange star. But it doesn't work that way, you have to point your telescope like the one one the left.

You may also be interested in the Michelson-Gale-Pearson experiment, which unlike the Michelson-Morely experiment, directly addresses aether drag.

Edit will read and come back

 

[Mudcat]

What went wrong... *snip*

What went wrong is that you're positing that there's aether, when that was debunked back in the nineteenth century. Why are you looking to overturn a modern and well understood theory in favor of an outdated and rejected one?

 

[Bjarne]

What went wrong is that you're positing that there's aether, when that was debunked back in the nineteenth century. Why are you looking to overturn a modern and well understood theory in favor of an outdated and rejected one?

Because this is one of relative few small bills we have to pay for a nice coherence universe (not conflicting with science itself) and because this part of relativity always is the place sceptics in decades have attached the theory.

 

[Mudcat]

Yeah. That makes zero sense. Did you pull that out of a random word generator or something?

 

[Daylightstar]

It depend of the exact inclination relative to the Dark Flow Axis
You can read it in the first post

I did not ask you that, I asked you what exactly you predict:

Which prediction >exactly< are you making?

 

[Bjarne]

Yeah. That makes zero sense. Did you pull that out of a random word generator or something?

Should be - attacked the the theory (SR)

 

[Bjarne]

I did not ask you that, I asked you what exactly you predict:

read post 1

 

[Daylightstar]

read post 1

Answer my question.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I am not a mathematician..
You know matter sucks elastic space.
But I don’t know how much.. Maybe Reality Check also has some experience with space sucking stuff?
If it can be quantified, how much elastic space matter sucks per particle, a mathematical model can easy be made.
But even though, you have to prove that space really sucks.
Math is not enough, - so the chose is rather do we want a coherent paradigm, or do we prefer an incoherent one, filled up with rubbish as dark matter, dark energy, (nobody know what is) and denial of plenty observation that doesn’t fits in, such as dark flow, Allais effect etc.,..
It’s rather a chose.

There is an experimentally confirmed mathematical model that does exactly that. It's called general relativity.
Learn some mathematics; it's the only way you will have a full understanding -- anything less is fluff.