• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
MikeG said:
Even if that last little bit were, literally, infinitesimally small? I know you'll say yes. Like many things in this field, the absolutism in this is just mind boggling. But if that's what the maths says..........
Click to expand...

The difference between the speed of light may be infinitesimal for .9999999999 to.9999999999 of c , however the energy required to do that is not infinitesimal it is exponential
 
MikeG said:
OK, now I'm confused. So it is possible to accelerate something (presumable a very small something) to 99.9999999999% of C, or to (C-1/C^2), but impossible to do that last little bit. Is that right?
Click to expand...

Study the equation E = γmc2 where γ = (1 - v2/c2)-1/2, which relates a mass of m moving at a velocity v with an energy E -- and you will understand why this is true. Specifically, see what happens as v gets closer and closer to c.
 
web4.jpg


If all galaxies only would move straight towards the Dark Flow Direction , all the galaxies inclination would be exactly perpendicular relative to the dark flow axis. Because when stars in a galaxy periodical is moving faster towards the DFD (which mean if the orbit inclination is different as 90° relative to the DFA axis) , – then RR is increasing and thereby simply preventing change of the Galaxy orbit inclination to take place, and when moving exactly opposite the Dark Flow direction, Effective Dark Flow Acceleration is responsible for the same result.

But because galaxies not only moves straight towards DFA , but also sideward relative to the DFA axis, – a secondary sideward RR direction will occur and effect the orbit inclination as illustrated above.

This means that a very special inclination pattern must be revealed in the cosmic web, which also is exactly what we see.

This means that a very special inclination pattern must be revealed in the cosmic web, which also is exactly what we see. A similar orbit inclination pattern must apply for solar systems (in the milkyway etc.)
 
Bjarne said:
[qimg]http://science27.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/web4.jpg[/qimg]

If all galaxies only would move straight towards the Dark Flow Direction , all the galaxies inclination would be exactly perpendicular relative to the dark flow axis. Because when stars in a galaxy periodical is moving faster towards the DFD (which mean if the orbit inclination is different as 90° relative to the DFA axis) , – then RR is increasing and thereby simply preventing change of the Galaxy orbit inclination to take place, and when moving exactly opposite the Dark Flow direction, Effective Dark Flow Acceleration is responsible for the same result.

But because galaxies not only moves straight towards DFA , but also sideward relative to the DFA axis, – a secondary sideward RR direction will occur and effect the orbit inclination as illustrated above.

This means that a very special inclination pattern must be revealed in the cosmic web, which also is exactly what we see.

This means that a very special inclination pattern must be revealed in the cosmic web, which also is exactly what we see. A similar orbit inclination pattern must apply for solar systems (in the milkyway etc.)
Click to expand...

OK, I'll buy that, Bjarne.









After I've seen the maths.
 
Bjarne said:
[qimg]http://science27.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/web4.jpg[/qimg]
This means that a very special inclination pattern must be revealed in the cosmic web, which also is exactly what we see.



This means that a very special inclination pattern must be revealed in the cosmic web, which also is exactly what we see. A similar orbit inclination pattern must apply for solar systems (in the milkyway etc.)
Click to expand...



Bjarne, please give a reference from the scientific literature showing these inclination patterns.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Daylightstar said:
So you took that picture and modeled your fantasy around it. That's what you get when you have nothing yourself :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Actually, what Bjarne does is that he finds any news in astronomy, then claims it confirms his theory. - Which proves that he doesn't even understand his own theory. :p


Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Actually, what Bjarne does is that he finds any news in astronomy, then claims it confirms his theory. - Which proves that he doesn't even understand his own theory. :p


Hans
Click to expand...

The theory has its own logic; I can do nothing but follow where it lead me.
As I wrote the same kind of pattern applies for solar systems
 
MRC_Hans said:
Actually, what Bjarne does is that he finds any news in astronomy, then claims it confirms his theory. - Which proves that he doesn't even understand his own theory. :p


Hans
Click to expand...

Yes, it's quite the recurrent theme with Bjarne.



Blissfully ignorant fantasy is such a beautiful thing ...... sometimes.
 
A thank you to the relevant power for reducing the size of the original piczilla, much appreciated :thumbsup:
 
Bjarne said:
The theory has its own logic; I can do nothing but follow where it lead me.
As I wrote the same kind of pattern applies for solar systems
Click to expand...

Well, you certainly can't do the maths.
 
Bjarne said:
If all galaxies only would move straight towards the Dark Flow Direction , ...
Click to expand...
If only you could white coherent text rather than delusions about galaxies, Bjarne :p!
Dark flow probably does not exist.
An childish cartoon is not science.
The idiocy that galaxies or solar systems have to have an inclination related to a non-existent dark flow is obvious when we have observed that they do not!
 
Bjarne said:
http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1438/
Click to expand...
Oh dear, Bjarne, showing how ignorant you are with an image that has nothing to do with dark flow :jaw-dropp!
Spooky Alignment of Quasars Across Billions of Light-years
New observations with ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) in Chile have revealed alignments over the largest structures ever discovered in the Universe. A European research team has found that the rotation axes of the central supermassive black holes in a sample of quasars are parallel to each other over distances of billions of light-years. The team has also found that the rotation axes of these quasars tend to be aligned with the vast structures in the cosmic web in which they reside.
Click to expand...
This is the observation that the supermassive black holes in these 19 quasars tend to be "either parallel or perpendicular to the directions of the large-scale structures to which they belong". Those structures go in various directions as you can see in the image which happens to be an artists impression :eye-poppi!

ETA: The main point is that this science has nothing to do with this thread. Unless you are trying to show yet again that your ignorance and fantasies means that your opinion as stated in the thread title is just another a fantasy.
:dl:
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
The theory has its own logic; I can do nothing but follow where it lead me.
Click to expand...
So your theory told you to lie about the contents of an image, Bjarne :p?
That image is an artists impression. That image is of the large scale structure of the universe.
The science is not about alignments with dark flow. The science is
Alignment of quasar polarizations with large-scale structures
We have measured the optical linear polarization of quasars belonging to Gpc-scale quasar groups at redshift z ~ 1.3. Out of 93 quasars observed, 19 are significantly polarized. We found that quasar polarization vectors are either parallel or perpendicular to the directions of the large-scale structures to which they belong.
Click to expand...
Repeating a delusion about "same kind of pattern applies for solar systems" does not make it true. AFAIK, We observe that solar systems tend to be aligned with the galaxy. We knew that galaxies are fairly randomly oriented. This observation is the possibility that galaxies tend to be oriented along large scale structures such as the filaments in that artist picture.
 
Perpetual Student said:
The energy required for a massive particle (of mass m) to travel at v is given by:

E = γmc2 where γ = (1 - v2/c2)-1/2, so you can see a hypotheticallyinfinite amount of energy would be required to travel at c.
Click to expand...

Highlighted the key word. Honestly though you can't have infinity as a result of a formula when all the numbers are known and finite. It's impossible by definition. You might get stupidly high numbers, but at no point will your results be infinite.

You might get an undefined answer if you wind up dividing by zero, but that's a mathematical singularity and not infinity.

Dancing David said:
You can't accelerate objects with mass to the speed of light because it require infinite energy , right?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't require infinite energy to accelerate an object to the speed of light (supposing if warping space/time or implementing hyperspace is not an option), though I'll agree the energy required would be monstrous. I could think of a number of other objections, but that just makes thrusting something at light speed impractical, not impossible.
 
Mudcat said:
Highlighted the key word. Honestly though you can't have infinity as a result of a formula when all the numbers are known and finite. It's impossible by definition. You might get stupidly high numbers, but at no point will your results be infinite.

You might get an undefined answer if you wind up dividing by zero, but that's a mathematical singularity and not infinity.
Click to expand...

If v = c, then v2/c2=1
1-1=0
0-1/2=infinity.

An object with nonzero rest mass requires infinite energy to accelerate to the speed of light, and a hypothetical massive object that somehow gets to the speed of light has infinite mass. It then becomes an infinite mass black hole that destroys the entire universe.
 
ehcks said:
If v = c, then v2/c2=1
1-1=0
0-1/2=infinity.
Click to expand...

Just to make sure I'm following you, v is volume right? I only ask because that the volume of most things squared are not the equivalent of the speed of light squared.

Just to prove that here is that equation using the volume of Death Star.

V=7,238,246.4
C=9.72

At this point, it's worth pointing out that already we've determined that v≠c.

So your objection is worthless from the onset.

Unfortunately the rest of the calculations move past the range of my calculator, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom