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

[Reality Check]

Ignorant nonsense

Let’s now first at all limit the discussion to a piece of matter.

Actually Let’s now list ignorance of physics from Bjarne,

1. The "energy is a thing" we see from ignorant cranks.
2. "Nature of energy" is nonsense.
   The definition of energy is in physics textbooks.
   How energy acts is in physics textbooks.
3. We know what mass is.
4. "Nature of mass" is nonsense.
   The definition of mass is in physics textbooks.
   How mass acts is in physics textbooks.
5. Why energy is equivalent to rest mass is that we can derive energy is equivalent to rest mass in SR (E=mc² where m = rest mass) and test this.

Followed by nonsense about his grandmother!

Let’s now first at all limit the discussion to a specific "piece of matter": the proton.
A proton has a rest mass of 1.672621777(74)×10−27 kg. This rest mass has an equivalent energy.
A proton moving at a velocity v wrt an observer has kinetic energy and a relativistic mass.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
I see 3 problems here
...

I see 1 problem here

1.
You want to take apart 'The Theory of Relativity in 2016/2017

• You still don't understand the basics.
• You still can't describe correctly what you don't understand.

I don't think 2016/2017 is going to happen for you, Bjarne.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Let’s now first at all limit the discussion to a piece of matter.

I see 3 problems here

1.
No one have any idea, or clue, or even abstract idea, what energy really is

• made of ?
• the nature of energy?

2.
The exact same problems repeat itself when it comes to what is

• mass realy is it made
• the nature of mass.

3.
And finally why is energy and mass equivalent to each other

And now well knowing that mass and energy is equivalent, we can read above that many are confused, because of even these factors are equivalent it shall not be taken literally (? (!)

Thus a contradiction..

It is 178 % certain that my grandmother will be 192% sure, that any answers to these questions that comes from the scientific community must sounds like illogical sufficient contradictory nonsense.

So in reality we have only more bland and empty bla. bla. bla. (no one really understands, and many are honest enough to admit confuse them ) and therefore in really what we have is again nothing but evidence of a big load of rubbish nobody really have understood.

And off course, it all happens because no one really have any clue of how exactly to define what energy mass really is, - otherwise than explanations that also are nothing but empty bland expressions and explanations, and only suitable for a culculator to ""understand"".

You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
Alberft Einsten

Read a textbook; take a course; learn some physics, then return with some informed questions. The above comments are nonsensical.

 

[Darwin123]

You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
Alberft Einsten

Your theory is wrong then. I will bet that your grandmother could not understand your theory. If your grandmother is alive, then try it on her.

Your quotation is wrong. The quote was misattributed to Einstein. Here are some links.

Really, try it on anybodies grandmother. I will bet there are some members of this forum who are grandmothers. If anybody reading this is a grandmother, then PLEASE comment on Bjarnes theory.

I don't think you can find a child who understands Bjarnes theory, either.

Einstein never mentioned grandmotherst. He may have said something about a child understanding a theory apart from the mathematical expression. However, even this is hearsay.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
• variant: If you can't explain something to a six-year-old, you really don't understand it yourself.
• variant: If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
• Frequently attributed to Richard Feynman
• Probably based on a similar quote about explaining physics to a "barmaid" by Ernest Rutherford
• Page 418 of Einstein: His Life and Times (1972) by Ronald W. Clark says that Louis de Broglie did attribute a similar statement to Einstein: To de Broglie, Einstein revealed an instinctive reason for his inability to accept the purely statistical interpretation of wave mechanics. It was a reason which linked him with Rutherford, who used to state that "it should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Einstein, having a final discussion with de Broglie on the platform of the Gare du Nord in Paris, whence they had traveled from Brussels to attend the Fresnel centenary celebrations, said "that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart ought to lend themselves to so simple a description 'that even a child could understand them.' "

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Albert_Einstein
‘I believe this comes from Michele de Montaigne*(1533-1592). I can't recall the French, but it begins, "C'est qui ce qu'on soit bien, [what you understand well,...] And says something like "If you can't say it simply, then you don't yet understand it well enough."
The French quote is actually by Nicolas Boileau - The Art of Poetry (1674), Canto I, l. 153
Einstein didn't say it, then? Too bad, I liked that formulation better. --Jules.LT (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)’

http://theydidnotsay.tumblr.com
‘THERE DOESN’T SEEM TO BE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THIS IS EINSTEIN AND IT’S HARD TO KNOW WHAT HE’D BE TALKING ABOUT IF IT WAS.’

http://www.quotescosmos.com/people/Albert-Einstein.html
You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.
Misattributed to Albert Einstein

 

[MetalPig]

I have read most of this thread and my impression is that the theory of relativity will not begin to fall apart in 2016/2017.

 

[Bjarne]

Actually Let’s now list ignorance of physics from Bjarne,

1. The "energy is a thing" we see from ignorant cranks.
2. "Nature of energy" is nonsense.
   The definition of energy is in physics textbooks.
   How energy acts is in physics textbooks.
3. We know what mass is.
4. "Nature of mass" is nonsense.
   The definition of mass is in physics textbooks.
   How mass acts is in physics textbooks.
5. Why energy is equivalent to rest mass is that we can derive energy is equivalent to rest mass in SR (E=mc² where m = rest mass) and test this.

Followed by nonsense about his grandmother!

Let’s now first at all limit the discussion to a specific "piece of matter": the proton.
A proton has a rest mass of 1.672621777(74)×10−27 kg. This rest mass has an equivalent energy.
A proton moving at a velocity v wrt an observer has kinetic energy and a relativistic mass.

As expected
Based on extreme empty bland superficial “knowledge”, - which in fact mean we do not know what mass or energy really is, - "we" pretend that we know why the nature of these 2 completely unknown factors are equivalent.

And the textbook bla bla bvla, is off course only a bad excuse chitchat for not discussing what was the questions. I believe everyone have noted this.

 

[Rincewind]

Bjarne,

How will we know it's falling apart?

Please can you give us the signs we should be looking for?

 

[TheAdversary]

'No one have any idea, or clue, or even abstract idea, what energy really is'

I haven't read the whole thread, but :

Take the concept of time. If you try to define it, you'll always end up with a circular definition. That doesn't help.
But that doesn't mean we cannot measure it, and find out mathematical relations. That's what physics is all about.
And so the fact that no one has any idea what energy, time, or even mathematics itself, really is in the philosophical sense doesn't matter to our
ability to do physics and mathematics. The philosophical questions do not disappear, but they are irrelevant to mathematical physics.
Many physicists nowadays take the position that such issues are irrelevant in general, leading to a general disdain of philosophy in the physics
community. I disagree with that, I think the philosophical questions are ultimately more important but they're separate issues in any case.
Don't confuse them.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Let me understand what you are trying to say. Part of the issue with detecting this effect is that fact that measuring equipment is also affected by this same mass increase effect as things are raised through the elastic media. However if you used a measuring device that was somehow unaffected by elevation change you could detect the difference?

If I have a 1 kg brick that I measure using a balance beam on the ground. Then I magically Isolate the balance beam from the relativistic effect and carry to the top of a tall building that when I weigh the now more massive brick that I should be able to show that it now weighs 1.25 kg.

Is that correct?

When you sell gold make sure you sell it to someone on the top floor

 

[catsmate]

"The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017"
Am I wrong or does that statement imply the TOR has been working just fine since the beginning of time and space and is only now going to fall apart? Why did it work so well for so long?

Because the Stars Will Be Right and reality as we know it will fall apart when the Great Old Ones and Outer Gods emerge.
Have fun.

 

[Bjarne]

'No one have any idea, or clue, or even abstract idea, what energy really is'

I haven't read the whole thread, but :

Take the concept of time. If you try to define it, you'll always end up with a circular definition. That doesn't help.
But that doesn't mean we cannot measure it, and find out mathematical relations. That's what physics is all about.
And so the fact that no one has any idea what energy, time, or even mathematics itself, really is in the philosophical sense doesn't matter to our
ability to do physics and mathematics. The philosophical questions do not disappear, but they are irrelevant to mathematical physics.
Many physicists nowadays take the position that such issues are irrelevant in general, leading to a general disdain of philosophy in the physics
community. I disagree with that, I think the philosophical questions are ultimately more important but they're separate issues in any case.
Don't confuse them.

The problem is that if you not at all really understanding what the math is telling you, how can you based on such foundation you really not haven’t understood continue to build.

 

[Dancing David]

As expected
Based on extreme empty bland superficial “knowledge”, - which in fact mean we do not know what mass or energy really is, - "we" pretend that we know why the nature of these 2 completely unknown factors are equivalent.

And the textbook bla bla bvla, is off course only a bad excuse chitchat for not discussing what was the questions. I believe everyone have noted this.

Without understanding the ontology, we do know that matter and energy are exactly the same.

particles are waves all the time, matter is energy all the time.

This is demonstrated by the double slit experiment and bose einstein condensate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose–Einstein_condensate

Matter behaves as though it is energy, that fact that the universe does not meet you expectations is your issue, not the universe's. You can ignore the universe if you wish

 

[Dancing David]

The problem is that if you not at all really understanding what the math is telling you, how can you based on such foundation you really not haven’t understood continue to build.

Because the descriptions/models of reality are very accurate.

Diodes work, even if wed don't have an understanding of QM

 

[Dave Rogers]

The problem is that if you not at all really understanding what the math is telling you, how can you based on such foundation you really not haven’t understood continue to build.

How are you transmitting this message?

Dave

 

[Perpetual Student]

As expected
Based on extreme empty bland superficial “knowledge”, - which in fact mean we do not know what mass or energy really is, - "we" pretend that we know why the nature of these 2 completely unknown factors are equivalent.

And the textbook bla bla bvla, is off course only a bad excuse chitchat for not discussing what was the questions. I believe everyone have noted this.

We do know a great deal about energy. Perhaps this might help in educating yourself: LINK
There's a lot more to learn than the Wikipedia article, but only if you learn some mathematics and stop this physics curmudgeon act.

 

[Bjarne]

Without understanding the ontology, we do know that matter and energy are exactly the same.

particles are waves all the time, matter is energy all the time.

This is demonstrated by the double slit experiment and bose einstein condensate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose–Einstein_condensate

Exactly, but my question is only why is that so ?
What is energy really and what is mass really
And why are these 2 factors equivalent ?

It is not enough to understand, that Jeppe on the hill is drinking, you must understand why Jeppe is drinking.

Is Jeppe's alcohol consumption equivalent to all the girls that have left him?
Or Why is Jeppe always drunk?
Same kind of question must be asked by real scientist, - if they want to know more

 

[Daylightstar]

Exactly, but my question is only why is that so ?
What is energy really and what is mass really
And why are these 2 factors equivalent ?
...

Have you studied the contents of the link Perpetual Student has provided you?:

... LINK ...

If so, what have you learned. If not, why not?

 

[Bjarne]

Have you studied the contents of the link Perpetual Student has provided you?:

If so, what have you learned. If not, why not?

I am afraid there is no new understanding available.

You know my point is that you cannot separate relativistic energy and relativistic mass.

The reason for this is that both factors belong to one and the same process, where elastic space is consumed and used for creating matter (mass)..

I think so fare few people on the planet have ever thought deep enough on that question. One of those is Max Planck..

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
— Max Planck

According to my understanding energy (the electromagnetic force and the strong force) (whatever it is) are both responsible for twisting elastic space together to what we call matter (mass).

In such scenario energy and mass are always inseparable connected and equivalent.

To my opinion this principle also applies when kinematic energy is conserved to relativistic mass/energy as well as position energy also is converted to mass/energy.

Energy is always either conserved to mass, -or “lost” as gravitational waves or EM-waves.

All other option must be mathematical nonsense, - you cannot have energy/mass that either vanish or (temperary) hide it self

 

[Daylightstar]

I am afraid there is no new understanding available.
...
According to my understanding energy (the electromagnetic force and the strong force) (whatever it is) are both responsible for twisting elastic space together to what we call matter (mass).

In such scenario energy and mass are always inseparable connected and equivalent.
...

It looks more like you want to hang onto your dreams, tightly.
Have a look how twisted your posts are:

Exactly, but my question is only why is that so ?
What is energy really and what is mass really
And why are these 2 factors equivalent ?
...

..... and compare with the above.

If you believe your idea has merit, you'll have to do the work and demonstrate that it has merit.

But, unfortunately, you're no Einstein .....

 

[Bjarne]

It looks more like you want to hang onto your dreams, tightly.
Have a look how twisted your posts are:

..... and compare with the above.

If you believe your idea has merit, you'll have to do the work and demonstrate that it has merit.

But, unfortunately, you're no Einstein .....

I don’t need to word hard to realize that if energy can vanish into an expression (position energy) and hide there, we are not speaking of beautiful science but rather about mathematical nonsense.