• 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.
Reality Check said:
That 10 years old school boy will conclude that you lied by stating that you had done the calculations in the PDF you linked to, Bjarne.
I am more charitable - you either lied or made an error which you can fix.
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes leaving the solar system, e.g. Voyager 1 and 2.
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes in a n Earth flyby.
Click to expand...

A 10 years old school buy can calculate the Lorentz factor, all you know to understand is the speed depending resistance factor, - its soo simple
 
Last edited:
BazBear said:
I predict that that these tests will add further support for SR/GR (as will the ISS atomic clock experiment due to fly in '17).

I further predict that you'll either completely ignore the results of these tests, or at least try to throw us a woo-science interpretation of them.
Click to expand...

Off course you have to think like that
100 years massive brainwash and propaganda has had its impact, no doubt about it...

So I hope the world also soon will learn have much collective brain damage brainwash can do..

But I am fare from sure; rather people would call me a lucky uneducated fool that completely randomly have found a little piece of gold.

Because it is completely impossible that a uneducated fool knows better than all the lifetime student that every day are hypnotic programmed, - how to think correctly and flawless, by disconnecting there of their own ability to think logical, intuitiv, and be critical.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
And he doubted that NASA solved the problem, - dear.
Click to expand...
Dear, you need to read and understand posts, including your own!
You wrote: many times in the scientific history broad hints are swept under the blanked. the Pioneer anomali is one of plenty.
You cited The Pioneer Anomaly: an inconvenient reality or NASA's 12 year misconception? to support that assertion.
But this pre-print
  • is not about a fantasy of anyone hiding anything under a blanket.
  • cites many papers on the anomaly - the opposite of hiding anything under a blanket in the paper :eek:!
  • being a conference presentation means that the author talked to many people about the Pioneer Anomaly - the opposite of hiding under a blanket in the conference :eek:!
You have a citation that says your assertion is wrong . This can be called shooting yourself in the foot :eek:!

Read the actual contents of the presentation, Bjarne.
  • See that the author states that the consensus among astronomers is that thermal recoil explains the anomaly.
  • See that the author's personal opinion is that he doubts that theory and he referrers to another person doubting.
  • See that the presentation was presented in 2012. The opinions may have changed.
Do not commit the sin of cherry picking an opinion that you agree with, Bjarne.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
That 10 years old school boy will conclude that you lied by stating that you had done the calculations in the PDF you linked to, Bjarne.
I am more charitable - you either lied or made an error which you can fix.
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes leaving the solar system, e.g. Voyager 1 and 2.
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes in a n Earth flyby.
Click to expand...

γ(υ)=(1 meter)/[√((1 - v^2/c^2 ) )] -1meter
 
Bjarne said:
Read more...
Click to expand...
The ignorance of thinking that an internet forum is scientific literature is worse than thinking that a conference is a scientific journal :jaw-dropp!
Looks some crank with the idiocy "I have no spacecraft data, no means to model the heat transfers within Pioneer - and no desire neither".
 
Reality Check said:
The ignorance of thinking that an internet forum is scientific literature is worse than thinking that a conference is a scientific journal :jaw-dropp!
Looks some crank with the idiocy "I have no spacecraft data, no means to model the heat transfers within Pioneer - and no desire neither".
Click to expand...

Here we have it again, its only 22 seconds sine I gave you this link http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79814-pioneer-anomaly-still/

and now you pretend you already have read it all..
 
Bjarne said:
A 10 years old school buy can calculate the Lorentz factor, all you know to understand is the speed depending resistance factor, - its soo simple
Click to expand...
More of the 10 years old school boy knowing that you lied (so far) about having done the calculations:
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes leaving the solar system, e.g. Voyager 1 and 2.
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes in a n Earth flyby.
 
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
What you imagine to be the Lorentz factor is not an citation, Bjarne.
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes leaving the solar system, e.g. Voyager 1 and 2.
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes in a n Earth flyby.

The real Lorentz factor has no "1 meter" or subtracting 1 and is not an acceleration.
γ(υ)=1/[√((1 - v^2/c^2 ) )]
Click to expand...

Its a resistance factor, the consequence is deceleration
 
 
Reality Check said:
So it is an imaginary equation that is obviously wrong ("1 meter"!), is not a citation as asked for and is not an acceleration :jaw-dropp!
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes leaving the solar system, e.g. Voyager 1 and 2.
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes in a n Earth flyby.
Click to expand...

Relativistic Mass and Energy are two sides of the same coin and therefore always inseparable from each other. This includes Kinematic Energy as well as Potential Energy which also always is converted to / subject to; - change of relativistic mass.

Because Mass (M) is a relativistic variant, the same magnitude Force (F) will due to F=M*a result in different speed (under different circumstances).
 
Reality Check said:
Whoops, Bjarne.
This forum is from December 2014 and you joined in with the same ignorance about photons stated in this thread: Photons and conservation momentum (split from Pioneer anomaly)
That is a year and a half where you did not bother to open a physics textbook , Google or read Wikipedia!
Click to expand...

My point of view is not rejecting what so called photons does, but only that these does not exist as individual particle, - it’s only fluctuation in the either, we have had this discussion already, read above..
 
Reality Check said:
Irrelevant nonsense is not a citation:
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes leaving the solar system, e.g. Voyager 1 and 2.
1 June 2016 Bjarne: Please cite your calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes in a n Earth flyby.
Click to expand...

Don't worry dear, sooner or later u2 will learn that:

Because Mass (M) is a relativistic variant, the same magnitude Force (F) will due to F=M*a result in different speed (under different circumstances).
 
Pixel42 said:
What will you do if the Galileo experiments confirm relativity, Bjarne?
Click to expand...

To calculate anything exact I need to know the elliptical eccentricity of the Galileo 5 and 6 orbit and the orbit inclination relative to a North South axis of the Sun (ecliptic) .
1.
UNEXPECTED GR EFFECT
Based on that I can calculate the speed increment, (unexpected acceleration) during the satellites Earth approach. It’s much less than by flyby, because the perigee approach of these satellites to Earth and thereby the suddenly change of GR influence is much-much weaker.
A weak unexpected acceleration must be expected, - but I think so weak that it will be difficult to measure in this case. Furthermore a decelerating influence shall be expected when moving north (due to activation of EDFA).
These 2 opposite kinematic anomalies can therefore more or less cancel out each other.
Time dilation will not be unexpected affected due to GR influence.. This part of GR is correct..

UNEXPECTED SR EFFECT
If Galileo 5 and 6 satellite orbit inclination is zero relative to North South axis of the Sun, and only when moving north we shall expect a significant SR time dilation anomaly.
It is the motion straight North, (with speed less as Dark Flow) , that triggers such significant SR time dilation anomaly.
So the question is therefore only how much north inclined is the Galileo Satellite orbits..
Several examples /consequnces are calculated and explained in the paper here http://science27.com/paper.pdf

According to RC test of relativity / time dilation test, - will not be executed, but only signal test, - what ever that mean..
All media is lying, - It seems RC have this unique information from a different planet, because he did not mention any source. (Aliens normally don’t leave much signature you know).

So as you can see the predicted Galileo anomalies depend on several conditions.
The ISS test is more politely to account with I guess, at least still RC have not published any cancelation - so ISS right now sound like a better test option.

However here is what can be found many places at the internet regarding the Galileo 5 and 6..
The Galileo satellites — also fitted with hydrogen maser atomic clocks, still retain an elliptical orbit so far. Because they are climbing and falling about 5280 miles twice a day in altitude, they have become very valuable to researchers who want to compare how differently time travels at different altitudes from the Earth.
Atomic clocks run about a few tenths of a microsecond faster in orbit than they do on the ground. On navigation satellites, this produces errors of about 6.2 miles per day. The ESA is hoping to use a year’s worth of data from the two Galileo satellites to improve instrumental precision as well as understand general relativity in more detail.
The two satellites are expected to collect data that’s at least four times more accurate than the results derived from the 1976 mission.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom