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

[Reality Check]

General Relativity is not the correct theory for the cause of gravity

Your incoherent fantasy is certainly not the correct theory for the cause of gravity, Bjarne !

Every test of GR shows that GR works and so is the currently correct theory for the cause of gravity. Like Newtonian gravitation was before GR.
Your rather incoherent fantasy has no testable, falsifiable predictions and passes no tests. A good test for any theory of gravitation: What do you predict for the perihelion precession of Mercury?

 

[Reality Check]

You cannot compare scientific satellits with GPS satellits.

No one is doing this. It is a basic fact that without adjustments to all GPS satellites for GR, they do not work.
The Galileo 5 & 6 satellites did not go into the wrong orbits (that was Galileo 7 & 8 which were then moved into correct orbits). Galileo 5 & 6 were 2 of the 4 Galileo In-Orbit Validation satellites.

 

[Reality Check]

The photon-momentum claim is nothing but a postulate.

This is a really ignorant statement, Bjarne. This is a photon

In empty space, the photon moves at c (the speed of light) and its energy and momentum are related by E = pc, where p is the magnitude of the momentum vector p. This derives from the following relativistic relation, with m = 0:[16]

A photon has energy and momentum.
A photon having momentum is not a postulate of any theory of physics. It is a consequence of SR.
A photon having momentum is an observed fact - light sails work because photons exchange momentum with the sail.

 

[Reality Check]

My friend think about if GPS really was flawless evidence, - why then testing on ISS and Galileo 5 and 6 these years

Yes something is rotten, Bjarne - your friend is lying to you and abysmally ignorant about science !

• Galileo 5 and 6 are being used for signal validation, not testing GR. It is that GPS satellites work that is a test of GR.
• There is a project for the ISS launching this year: Atomic Clock Ensemble in Space
• Scientists always continue to test even well established theories such as GR. They want to break them! They want to do more precise experiments. In this case there are a lot of fields that will benefit: ACES
  

  ACES is a new generation of atomic clock taking advantage in the micro-gravity environment of the ISS. The ACES payload will distribute a stable and accurate time base that will be used for space-to-ground as well as ground-to-ground clock comparisons. The direct comparison of ultra-precise atomic clocks is crucial for the exploitation of ACES potential in different areas of research: fundamental physics (General Relativity and String Theory tests), time and frequency metrology, but also geodesy and gravimetry, precise orbit determination, Earth monitoring, Very Long Baseline Interferometry, global positioning and navigation.

 

[BazBear]

Just dropping by to check on SR/GR. Looks like they're hanging in there, whew, thank FSM!

 

[Reality Check]

Its only when moving more or less north , we can measure that something is wrong with relativity, and in this case only with special relativity..

Second General rule for physics cranks (al la ben m's General Rule for physics cranks): never, ever, ever assume that an experimental or observational test does not exist!
The ISS goes from North to South (and also from Earth To West - it seems to cover most if not all of the Earth's surface).
Many satellites go North to South in polar orbits.
Why are these orbits as predicted by mainstream science and do not differ as your theory predicts, Bjarne?

 

[Bjarne]

PHOTONS AND PARTICLE MOMENTUM

Within few years SR will fall apart....We shall expect…

• That we are forced to critically review the foundation of the theory of relativity and (on the one hand) consider which aspects of the foundation substantiate the existing knowledge we have of e.g. GPS and (on the other hand) which aspects of the theory must be based on wrong conclusions / interpretations.
• That the current interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment must be rejected.
• That the ISS measurement evidently confirms that there has been no reason to reject the ether theory.
• That we are back in the end of the 18th century where it was found that “ether” must exist.
• That the only candidate able to explain the correct interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment is the gravitational field of Earth which must consist of the same elastic "substance" as the ether. The ether therefore follows the Earth and therefore the ether does not collide with the Earth.
• There was no reason to reject that photons are waves and only waves, moving in elastic ether.
• There is no evidence or reason to believe that photons are individual particles or can be compared to mass-particles. Rather there are good reason to believe that these are fluctuations in the elastic either

So my point is, it’s not correct to compare mass-particle with so called photons, especially when we soon will realize that there has been no reason to reject the ether theory.

We have no reason to conclude that because a so-called photons at speed c behave so and so, then a mass-particle at lower speed must behave so and so, and therefore orbit the sun due to the same reason that bended the light.

There is HUGE a missing link here.
The only hard Evidence Einstein had for this postulate is the precession anomaly of Mercury.
But we will guaranteed, - sooner or later - realize that the cause of this anomaly is only kinematic, and nothing else.

So the theory of relativity will soon suffer 2 major loses of its own foundation it is built on.

Mass particle and photons are entirely different in nature and not comparable in any way.
Light is bended insignificant in a gravitational field, we have no right to conclude that this insignificant bend is due to the speed of light, - or that speed of a planet with lower speed, will be stronger affected and therefore orbit the sun caused by to the same reason that bended the light.
Such conclusion is absolutely illogical nonsense

The existence of photons is misunderstood´. Photons are not individual particles, but rather like waves on the ocean, that in no way can be compared to mass particles.
Photons can therefore also not have individual momentum, simply because they does not exist as particles....

Rather we can say that each EM-wave have a certain vector momentum, but this is a different story, and still not comparable with mass-particles moving through space.

So the point is that a mass-particle moves through space, photons not, these are only ripples in space itself. Notice the difference and the different consequences.

 

[MikeG]

PHOTONS AND PARTICLE MOMENTUM

Within few years SR will fall apart.............

So you're giving up on your "2016-2017" prediction, now that we're a substantial way into 2016 and there isn't the slightest sign of your guess prediction coming true. Are you going to endlessly move the goalposts?

 

[Bjarne]

So you're giving up on your "2016-2017" prediction, now that we're a substantial way into 2016 and there isn't the slightest sign of your guess prediction coming true. Are you going to endlessly move the goalposts?

You can search the internet when the Measurement will take place. I understand it as late 2016 equipment will be flown to ISS after that give them some time right

 

[MikeG]

You can search the internet when the Measurement will take place. I understand it as late 2016 equipment will be flown to ISS after that give them some time right

Your claim, your onus. You do some searching.

 

[Bjarne]

Your claim, your onus. You do some searching.

I did and found 2016 and 2017

 

[MikeG]

So why are you now saying "within a few years", when your thread headline is 2016/ 2017?

 

[Bjarne]

This is a really ignorant statement, Bjarne. This is a photon

A photon has energy and momentum.
A photon having momentum is not a postulate of any theory of physics. It is a consequence of SR.
A photon having momentum is an observed fact - light sails work because photons exchange momentum with the sail.

Because so called photons are nothing but integrated fluctuation / waves in the elastic space itself, - its only naturally that light waves follows the deformation / bend of space.
It have nothing with momentum to do. The same would happen if light was moving 1 km/h

But mass-particles are not integrated with space, but rather individual particle that moves through space.
If the curvature of space really tells / guides matter how to move, - at least a hypothetical based explanation should be provided.

So long there even is a slight idea how the curvature space can guide a mass-particle, - you have nothing but rubbish.
Its not enough to believe that the curvature is is strong right here and therefore the Earth is orbiting the Sun.., Where are the evidence ?
If so you could also claim that the sky is blue because oxygen is extreme blue.

The truth could very well be that the mass-particle simply doesn’t care with the curvature of space simply because there are no way to connect a mass-particle to it.

Light is as I wrote a completely different story.

All the momentum philosophy is therefore nothing but incoherent unsupported speculation to justify an extreme weak hypothesis of the cause of gravity

 

[The Man]

Because so called photons are nothing but integrated fluctuation / waves in the elastic space itself, - its only naturally that light waves follows the deformation / bend of space.
It have nothing with momentum to do. The same would happen if light was moving 1 km/h

But mass-particles are not integrated with space, but rather individual particle that moves through space.
If the curvature of space really tells / guides matter how to move, - at least a hypothetical based explanation should be provided.

So long there even is a slight idea how the curvature space can guide a mass-particle, - you have nothing but rubbish.
Its not enough to believe that the curvature is is strong right here and therefore the Earth is orbiting the Sun.., Where are the evidence ?
If so you could also claim that the sky is blue because oxygen is extreme blue.

The truth could very well be that the mass-particle simply doesn’t care with the curvature of space simply because there are no way to connect a mass-particle to it.

Light is as I wrote a completely different story.

Wait, what ?!?!? "mass-particles are not integrated with space," and "there are no way to connect a mass-particle to it."?

Wasn't it your claim of "space consuming particles (mass particles)" that causes gravity and the deformation of space?

I doubt it is even possible for your "(mass particles)" to be any more "integrated with" and 'connected' to space than by "consuming" it.

To try to put it more succinctly for you, your whole base assertion of "space consuming particles (mass particles)" explicitly requires them to be both "integrated with" and 'connected' to space.

This is one of those short cuts and tests I inquired of before. Internal or self-consistency. If your notions just can't agree with themselves then nothing and no one can agree with them either

All the momentum philosophy is therefore nothing but incoherent unsupported speculation to justify an extreme weak hypothesis of the cause of gravity

Again what is the relation of kinetic energy and momentum?

Oh and while your at it, for the fourth time, how do you define "north"?

 

[Bjarne]

Wait, what ?!?!? "mass-particles are not integrated with space," and "there are no way to connect a mass-particle to it."?

Wasn't it your claim of "space consuming particles (mass particles)" that causes gravity and the deformation of space?

I doubt it is even possible for your "(mass particles)" to be any more "integrated with" and 'connected' to space than by "consuming" it.

No this is not true..

To try to put it more succinctly for you, your whole base assertion of "space consuming particles (mass particles)" explicitly requires them to be both "integrated with" and 'connected' to space.

This is one of those short cuts and tests I inquired of before. Internal or self-consistency. If your notions just can't agree with themselves then nothing and no one can agree with them either

No, a mass-particle is not "integrated” but only weak 'connected' to space, - it is interacting with an opposite spinning particle, and only indirectly connected to space.

A mass-particle is always at any time always separated and indirectly connected to space at the same time, so long it interacts with another oppesite spinning particle..

The connection you wrote about, - is due to the tension in the elastic property of space, - caused by the space absorbing property of a mass-particle..

This elastic connection is a weak connection we call gravity, and far from a 100% integrated “particle” in contrast to massless EM-waves.

Such mass-particle are sensitive to motion of space (a magnetic field), but we have no evidence showing that mass-particle also are sensitive to any curvature direction.

The spin interaction or the elastic connection to space doesn’t mean that matter recognizes any direction due to the curvature. if you disagree, - how should that be possible?

A fully integrated “EM-particle” is not only connected to space, rather it is one and the same phenomena, - which mean the only difference is that EM waves are; “pulsating elastic space” - and not calm space, - if you prefer.

In this case it sounds reasonable that a EM-wave will follow the “shape” of the “ocean” where the wave is a fully integrated “part”.

 

[Daylightstar]

You can search the internet when the Measurement will take place. I understand it as late 2016 equipment will be flown to ISS after that give them some time right

Once 2017 has passed, they'll surely need more time.
Perhaps even new equipment.
Perhaps the equipment needed will still have to be invented.
Who knows how many years are needed for that.

Exactly as long as you run your silly fantasy.

 

[Bjarne]

Once 2017 has passed, they'll surely need more time.
Perhaps even new equipment.
Perhaps the equipment needed will still have to be invented.
Who knows how many years are needed for that.

Exactly as long as you run your silly fantasy.

No, we will relative fast discover that when moving north something is wrong
It can take time to fine tune, where the anomaly will culminate, but this will also will be done pretty fast, because it is not difficult..

The same thing is possible for Galileo 5 and 6, but I have to say I do not know much about the orbit. Little data can be found..

If the Galileo 5 and 6 will keep a relative large elliptical orbit during test, we will also be able to measure that speed will increase more than expected by perihelion. But fare from so much measure by flyby, simply because approach to Earth is far from the same.

The best experiment that can be done is to let a space probe fly very close to Earth (flyby), this will increase speed, 'much' more as expected, - but notice large speed (the SR influence) have the opposite decelerating effect, and can more or less cancel out the accelerating GR influence.

So to have biggest possible anomaly we must have slowest possible speed, and biggest possible approach to each. This will cause a biggest possible positive speed anomaly.

If we instead have smallest possible gravity influence and biggest possible speed, we will see an decelerating effect instead. (fx the pioneer anomalies)..

Furthermore flying towards north will have a decelerating influence; due to it will activate EDFA, even if the orbit is circular.

So it is easy to calculate and setup the best possible space probe trajectory experiments, but this of course require that also 2nd part of the theory (the GR effect) which is discussed here 2 days now, - is taken serious..

 

[dasmiller]

The same thing is possible for Galileo 5 and 6, but I have to say I do not know much about the orbit. Little data can be found.

problem solved:

GSAT0201 (PRN E18)
1 40128U 14050A 16150.82519498 -.00000066 00000-0 00000+0 0 9996
2 40128 50.0726 60.5948 1592356 49.9670 322.9526 1.85518335 12163

GSAT0202 (PRN E14)
1 40129U 14050B 16150.01612624 -.00000062 00000-0 00000+0 0 9999
2 40129 50.1286 59.6096 1592709 51.0483 322.1027 1.85518933 12349

 

[Daylightstar]

...
So it is easy to calculate and setup the best possible space probe trajectory experiments, ...

Please proceed to demonstrate this 'best possible space probe trajectory experiment' through those, what you call, easy calculations .....

 

[Bjarne]

problem solved:

GSAT0201 (PRN E18)
1 40128U 14050A 16150.82519498 -.00000066 00000-0 00000+0 0 9996
2 40128 50.0726 60.5948 1592356 49.9670 322.9526 1.85518335 12163

GSAT0202 (PRN E14)
1 40129U 14050B 16150.01612624 -.00000062 00000-0 00000+0 0 9999
2 40129 50.1286 59.6096 1592709 51.0483 322.1027 1.85518933 12349

Above my head