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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dancing David said:
That is again a grade school fail, you have not provided a citation of any research, by Arp or otherwise.

thereby seeming to lend support to my theory that you haven't read Arp's papers or tried to understand them
Click to expand...

I am not referering to a theory but to observation, not expected and not understood.
 
Bjarne said:
This part is correct there are no contradiction with the new theory
Click to expand...
What new theory? All I have seen from you is incoherent word salad. You have not predicted the precession of the orbit of Mercury for the simple reason that this word salad contains no valid math.
 
Bjarne said:
They took his telescope time
Click to expand...
Try to learn when happens in the real world, Bjarne.
There is only so many hours in a night that a telescope can be used. There are a lot of astronomers wanting to use that time. Astronomers present evidence that they have a credible project to use telescope time and that determines how much time that they are allocated.
Arp's evidence for his ideas was already disputed by 1972 but he still got telescope time. As his ideas become less and less valid, he was allocated less and less telescope time.
Finally Arp himself decided not to ask for telescope time :jaw-dropp!

Halton Arp was not fired from any job.
Halton Arp, 86, Dies; Astronomer Challenged Big Bang Theory
As Dr. Arp’s colleagues lost patience with his quest, he was no longer invited to speak at major conferences, and his observing time on the mighty 200-inch telescope began to dry up. Warned in the early 1980s that his research program was unproductive, he refused to change course. Finally, he refused to submit a proposal at all on the grounds that everyone knew what he was doing. He got no time at all.

Dr. Arp took early retirement and joined the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics near Munich, where he continued to promote his theories. He told his own side of the redshift story in a 1989 book, “Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies.”
Click to expand...
 
Bjarne said:
... I will explain further when I get more time.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Bjarne, but you do not have to repeat the fantasy that the MM experiment tested for the existence of a fully dragged aether. We know what the MM experiment tests for.

Going onto your ignorance of the experiments that rule out that "ether frames follows the Earth" will be ... well ignorant, Bjarne :jaw-dropp!
The Fizeau experiment (1851) indicated only a partial entrainment of light.
Some of these experiments were done before the MM experiment. That is why Michelson and Morley and dozens of tests for an aether ignore complete aether dragging
 
Dancing David said:
That is again a grade school fail, you have not provided a citation of any research, by Arp or otherwise.
Click to expand...
FYI, Dancing David, I suspect that Byrne does not know that scientific literature or textbooks exist!
That image he cited is from Arp's web site. An article with a bit of hero worship of Fred Hoyle, Research With Fred. The image is of NGC 7603 and NGC 7603B which is a pair of galaxies supposedly linked by a filament. Hoyle and Arp got all even more excited by the fact that there are a couple of quasars shining through the filament.
More rational people see a rather disturbed, hyperactive galaxy NGC 7603 showing signs of a near collision and thus the creation of a tidal arm (the filament). That there are background galaxies shining through the tidal arm is not unexpected.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
Nobody even dream about I could be right. And the only logical reason is that this will be against mainstream brainwash.
Click to expand...

Or, have you considered this possibility: You could be wrong.

...

Honestly, your "theory" flies somewhat worse than a brick. It requires things that have been shown to not exist (eather and RR), it has no evidence, and you can't explain how the interaction between matter and your "elastic" space could possibly work.

The reason nobody thinks you are right is that you are so obviously wrong.

Hans
 
Bjarne said:
It depend of the exact inclination relative to the Dark Flow Axis
You can read it in the first post
Click to expand...

Which would mean that the effects would only align with the dark flow and not be isotropic in orientation of vectors approaching the speed of light.

You model would say that the contractions would vary depending on the orientation of the vectors of travel to the dark flow.
 
Bjarne said:
They took his telescope time
I mean is this not like like kicking a detective back to stupid street police
Would you then also leave """"""voluntarily """"""LIAR
Click to expand...

Wah, they took his telescope time?
So what?

Did you know about the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, there is plenty of data that he could work with. In fact apparently unknown to you, since you don't actually read any of his papers, Arp still publishes!

You are just going off of some conspiracy video! Amateurs can image Arp objects from their own scopes.

There is plenty of data available for Arp to use, so why are you making excuses for him.

His theory is wrong, there is no anomalous resdhift for galaxies and QSOs, QSOs are not ejected by galactic centers in collisions.

His theories do not match the evidence of all the galaxy surveys, there is no association between interacting galaxies and QSOs.

BTW, you can see lots and lots of galaxies in Hubble and SDSS images here:
http://www.galaxyzoo.org/
 
Bjarne said:
The most brainwashed are brainwashing the lees brain washed.
Much worse as fantastic religion.
Nobody even dream about I could be right. And the only logical reason is that this will be against mainstream brainwash.
Click to expand...

Since you have no data you resort to bombast
 
Let me first say I appreciate the last week questions, regarding different kind of measurement more or less similar to the Michelson-Morley experiments
Finally I got some time to better explain how the new theory explain this..
It’s really a good question and very central to the new theory, what really happens with a photon that has entered the elastic ether following the Earth.

According to Einstein the speed of light is the same to all observers.
Several experiments confirm it. No doubt about this.

Here at the forum Reality Check, MRC Hans and me was about 5 years ago discussing whether the ruler also inside a gravitational field is a variant or not.
The answer is we don’t, but a simple thought experiment shows that this is the case.

‘A’ live in the basement of a skyscraper, ‘B’ at the top of the same building.
Both have measured the time it took a photon to travel 13 billion. from the very first star and to us..
But A’s clock (deeper in the gravitational field) is as we know ticking slower than B’s clock.
B would argue that it took the photon one minute longer to reach us – than the time A has measured. Simply because B’s clock is ticking faster than the A’s watch. The difference is probably in reality less, but it means nothing , its the same point.
We accept that the speed “c” is the same for both A and B.
When both A and B know the time and speed, A and B can only conclude that either the distance to the star that emitted photon is significantly different, which is utopian, because the universe is not likely to change shape depending on the observer who observes a process .
Otherwise, the conclusion can only be that A’s ruler (in the basement) must have changed (have streched longer) proportional to the time also have stretched, - as a result of A’s watch is deeper in the gravitational field.
Only in this way A and B both can assert that ‘c’ is the same for both (even thoug ‘c’ is not comparable the speed )

SR and GR is a theory of reality transformation, but the new understanding is that everything is always either stretching or contracting proportional, either due to gravity or relativistic speed..

This comprehends all the following factors;

  • Distances
  • Rulers
  • Energy , Mass (increase or decrease)
  • Any process
  • The EM spectre
  • The speed of light
  • Time

A photon will, when it enter the gravitational field of the Earth, not feel the speed of the Earth , but only feel that the tension of space has changed, and due to that, the speed of light will change too, - so that the speed of light adapt to the new , tension of space, - or if you prefer, -to the new space time reality.

The common denominator causing all these proportional effects to happen - is the variation of tension of space, - or you can say the variation of the tension of the ether.
 
Last edited:
This used to be amusing, then I realised the Bjarne is actually taking this stuff seriously. I went from amused to being bemused.
 
Bjarne said:
Let me first say I appreciate the last week questions, regarding different kind of measurement more or less similar to the Michelson-Morley experiments
Finally I got some time to better explain how the new theory explain this..
It’s really a good question and very central to the new theory, what really happens with a photon that has entered the elastic ether following the Earth.

According to Einstein the speed of light is the same to all observers.
Several experiments confirm it. No doubt about this.

Here at the forum Reality Check, MRC Hans and me was about 5 years ago discussing whether the ruler also inside a gravitational field is a variant or not.
The answer is we don’t, but a simple thought experiment shows that this is the case.

‘A’ live in the basement of a skyscraper, ‘B’ at the top of the same building.
Both have measured the time it took a photon to travel 13 billion. from the very first star and to us..
But A’s clock (deeper in the gravitational field) is as we know ticking slower than B’s clock.
B would argue that it took the photon one minute longer to reach us – than the time A has measured. Simply because B’s clock is ticking faster than the A’s watch. The difference is probably in reality less, but it means nothing , its the same point.
We accept that the speed “c” is the same for both A and B.
When both A and B know the time and speed, A and B can only conclude that either the distance to the star that emitted photon is significantly different, which is utopian, because the universe is not likely to change shape depending on the observer who observes a process .
Otherwise, the conclusion can only be that A’s ruler (in the basement) must have changed (have streched longer) proportional to the time also have stretched, - as a result of A’s watch is deeper in the gravitational field.
Only in this way A and B both can assert that ‘c’ is the same for both (even thoug ‘c’ is not comparable the speed )

SR and GR is a theory of reality transformation, but the new understanding is that everything is always either stretching or contracting proportional, either due to gravity or relativistic speed..

This comprehends all the following factors;

  • Distances
  • Rulers
  • Energy , Mass (increase or decrease)
  • Any process
  • The EM spectre
  • The speed of light
  • Time

A photon will, when it enter the gravitational field of the Earth, not feel the speed of the Earth , but only feel that the tension of space has changed, and due to that, the speed of light will change too, - so that the speed of light adapt to the new , tension of space, - or if you prefer, -to the new space time reality.

The common denominator causing all these proportional effects to happen - is the variation of tension of space, - or you can say the variation of the tension of the ether.
Click to expand...

That's nice Bjarne, but believe it or not, there is not one iota in there showing what your 'theory' predicts.

Can your show that your 'theory' predicts anything?
If so, what and how?
 
Bjarne said:
SR and GR is a theory of reality transformation,
Click to expand...

No, that is not the case. Reality is not transformed. It just looks different in different observer frames.

but the new understanding is that everything is always either stretching or contracting proportional, either due to gravity or relativistic speed..

This comprehends all the following factors;

  • Distances
  • Rulers
  • Energy , Mass (increase or decrease)
  • Any process
  • The EM spectre
  • The speed of light
  • Time
Click to expand...


No. It is really only time that changes. Distances can appear to change because we normally measure them in relation to time.

The EM spectrum will only change when viewed from another reference frame, again because time changes.

Enrgy and mass don't change, except that energy wille be converted to mass if things are accelerated to relativistic speeds.

A photon will, when it enter the gravitational field of the Earth, not feel the speed of the Earth , but only feel that the tension of space has changed, and due to that, the speed of light will change too, - so that the speed of light adapt to the new , tension of space, - or if you prefer, -to the new space time reality.
Click to expand...

No, that is a silly way to put it. It simply doesn't cover it.

The common denominator causing all these proportional effects to happen - is the variation of tension of space, - or you can say the variation of the tension of the ether.
Click to expand...

There is no ehter. There is also no tension of space. Space IS deformed, but there is no tension.

Bjarne, you obviously have difficulty getting your mind around relativity. That's not strange, it IS rather hard. However, it will not help to fill in the holes with fantasy. Either do the hard work of getting to understand it, or live with not understanding it.

Hans
 
Getting back to the thread title. Its a prediction and here we are, nearing the end of the second month of 2016. That's 8% of the proposed time frame of 24 months. Yet there is no talk of an overthrow of GR. Now, granted , there is still another 22 months to go, however if this is to be a thing its going to have to get moving along soon. I would expect it to be spoken of by the likes of Phil Plait, Michio Kaku and Neil deGrasse Tyson fairly soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom