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

[Reality Check]

Let me first say I appreciate the last week questions, regarding different kind of measurement more or less similar to the Michelson-Morley experiments ...

You need to learn more English, Bjarne.
The last week has been pointing out ignorance and fantasies about science in your posts.
The delusion that you have a new theory has been pointed out many times.
Repeating ignorance is bad, Bjarne.
There is no "According to Einstein". It is according to the special theory of relativity or general theory of relativity.
Special Relativity has the postulate that the speed o light in vacuum as measured by observers in inertial frames will have the same value. The highlighted bits are important!
General Relativity does not have that postulate and states that the coordinate speed of light will vary.

Followed by the usual rather ignorant word salad.

 

[Daylightstar]

Getting back to the thread title. Its a prediction and here we are, ...

It is however not a prediction based on his 'theory', it's a psychic prediction. Can Bjarne produce a properly documented prediction based on his 'theory'?

A thousand years is a long time ahead, but it already looks like he's not going to manage that

 

[Darwin123]

That's a prediction of a psychic nature. Is Bjarne claiming to be psychic?

You may have just made a 'typic'.

 

[fuelair]

You may have just made a 'typic'.

Perhaps Bjarne needs a psydchic!!!!

 

[Daylightstar]

You may have just made a 'typic'.

Oh, that's okay, I make typics all the time. Which typic did I make this time?

 

[Darwin123]

Oh, that's okay, I make typics all the time. Which typic did I make this time?

I see my joke has to be parsed. Therefore:

'Typic' is a misspelling of 'typo'.
'Psychic' is a misspelling of 'psycho'.

You wrote 'psychic' when you really meant 'psycho'.

 

[Bjarne]

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.

All I can say is that there are little data release regarding Galileo 5 & 6
So fare I understand the test of relativity should have started now
But there has been a lot of discussion what to do with these to off orbit satellite.
All I “know” is that the next 2 years test of relativity would must like what we should expect
Regarding the atomic clock and other sensitive devices I read 2 different article when this must be brought to ISS.- One say 2016 the other 2017

 

[Bjarne]

Special Relativity has the postulate that the speed o light in vacuum as measured by observers in inertial frames will have the same value. The highlighted bits are important!
.

Right

General Relativity does not have that postulate and states that the coordinate speed of light will vary.
Followed by the usual rather ignorant word salad

The ruler is also always a proportional variant in a field of gravity.

 

[RussDill]

I'm confused, if you are unable to calculate the expected results for Galileo 5/6 given relativity and then given your theory, how will you know if they are doing what relativity would expect vs what your theory would expect?

 

[Bjarne]

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

That would be the same as if I said your reality only “look like” it is real.

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

There is nothing like ”appears to be” in the real world. A distance is a distance , and the ruler must be able to account for it. And therefore you cannot only have a apparent distance change, - rather you must always have relativistic stretch or shrink of the ruler too, - at least this is what a modified version of the theory of relativity predict.

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

You cannot view a specter from another reference frame, - you can only measure that the wavelength coming out from a gravitational field have changed (redshifted) – but the interpretation what caused this is misunderstood.
According to the theory of relativity a photon is fighting itself out of the gravitational field.
But this is nonsense because photons never interact with gravity.
The correct interpretation is that the photon is redshifted because it was released in a different space tension environment, where everything as well as a process, was stretched.

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

And this is what i claim, M and E will increase due to speed, but only due to true speed.

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

The only thing that turned over elastic the space paradigm from the late 1800, was the Michelson-Morley experiments and later similar experiments.
These was based on a completely wrong interpretation how photons "feels" and moves in the ether.
And exactly this interpretation will be proven wrong by ISS and Galileo measurement, when it becomes clear that relativistic affects only is a result of true speed (and gravity), - or if you prefer when it becomes clear that an relativistic absolute motion reference frame must exist .

It is pretty obvious that the day we understand that there was no reason to reject the old elastic ether , - should it then not be reintroduced ?

 

[MikeG]

You'd think we might have noticed ether, wouldn't you, being as we would fly through it regularly, as well as having satellites bobbing around in the stuff. Damn sloppy of us, I'd say, to have missed it.

What's it actually made of, Bjarne? You know, atoms and things.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Oh, that's okay, I make typics all the time.

Bloody typical.

Dave

 

[Bjarne]

You'd think we might have noticed ether, wouldn't you, being as we would fly through it regularly, as well as having satellites bobbing around in the stuff. Damn sloppy of us, I'd say, to have missed it.

What's it actually made of, Bjarne? You know, atoms and things.

You can feel the tension of the elastic ether each time you work up the stairs,
Ether its made of the same stuff as gravity.

 

[Daylightstar]

Bloody typical.

Dave

Don't you mean topical?

 

[Daylightstar]

You can feel the tension of the elastic ether each time you work up the stairs,
Ether its made of the same stuff as gravity.

Gravity is made of stuff?

 

[jaydeehess]

Perhaps Bjarne needs a psydchic!!!!

A chic on the psyd? How would his wife feel?

 

[jaydeehess]

You can feel the tension of the elastic ether each time you work up the stairs,
Ether its made of the same stuff as gravity.

Yeah, and Newton's work describes that very well too. All his equations work extremely well for such a situation.

Gravity is made of stuff?

Higg's Bosons

 

[MRC_Hans]

That would be the same as if I said your reality only “look like” it is real.


There is nothing like ”appears to be” in the real world. A distance is a distance , and the ruler must be able to account for it. And therefore you cannot only have a apparent distance change, - rather you must always have relativistic stretch or shrink of the ruler too, - at least this is what a modified version of the theory of relativity predict.


You cannot view a specter from another reference frame, - you can only measure that the wavelength coming out from a gravitational field have changed (redshifted) – but the interpretation what caused this is misunderstood.
According to the theory of relativity a photon is fighting itself out of the gravitational field.
But this is nonsense because photons never interact with gravity.
The correct interpretation is that the photon is redshifted because it was released in a different space tension environment, where everything as well as a process, was stretched.

And this is what i claim, M and E will increase due to speed, but only due to true speed.

No.

-But my fault for trying to make a simple explanation. This is like explaining HD digital TV to someone who is still struggling to grasp AM radio.

The only thing that turned over elastic the space paradigm from the late 1800, was the Michelson-Morley experiments and later similar experiments.
These was based on a completely wrong interpretation how photons "feels" and moves in the ether.

No matter how often you repeat this stuff, all it shows is your ignorance.

And exactly this interpretation will be proven wrong by ISS and Galileo measurement, when it becomes clear that relativistic affects only is a result of true speed (and gravity), - or if you prefer when it becomes clear that an relativistic absolute motion reference frame must exist .

Well, Bjarne, that's your prediction. How about you shut up and come back in, say, 2018 or so?

Hans

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Higg's Bosons

Did Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. Higg put all his/her bosons in the gravity, or did he/she use some for the side dish as well?


So, gravity is made of elastic Higgs bosons?

 

[Ziggurat]

Gravity is made of stuff?

Grav(it)y is what you put on the stuff(ing).