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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bjarne said:
I understand it very well, and this is why you can't get me trapped, - even though there is such much, (you call science) that is threaten to be thrown out of the window.
Click to expand...

No one has to trap you, you do that yourself as you just can't agree with yourself. We keep trying to give you the tools to get yourself out of the corners you keep painting yourself into.
 
Bjarne said:
I thought you already knew, - it’s not only a modified theory of relativity rather a theory of everything, - but of pedagogical reasons, it is better to go stepwise forward..
Click to expand...

No, it is simply some self-contradictory musing that when asserted even you don't agree with.
Bjarne said:
As follows...

1.) Bring down the prevailing SR ( and modify SR)
Click to expand...

You have yet to show anything that even opposes SR let alone midifies it or might 'bring it down'. Again focus on working out your own notions as opposed to trying to "bring down" others.


Bjarne said:
2.) Bring down the idea that GR is the cause of gravity
Click to expand...

GR is not the cause of gravity it is simply a general application of special relativity which is a modification of Galilean invariance with the speed of light as an upper limit. Matter/Energy is the cause of gravity. What GR does, quite successfully, is to relate that collection of Matter/Energy by the stress energy tensor to the curvature of space time and thus the motion of bodies and the coordinate values of the measurement of events.

Bjarne said:
3.) Dark matter and black holes mysteries are then automatically solved.
Click to expand...

Black holes or dark stars, a star whose gravitational attraction was such that even light could not escape, were originally proposed by Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796. Long before SR and GR and thus don't depend on either.

Dark matter is a result of the matter we can see by electro-magnetic radiation doesn't agree with the matter calculated by even just Newtonian mechanics in galactic rotation curves.

So nothing is "automatically solved" you're actually going to have to work at these even after and if you can work out your elastic space.


Bjarne said:
4.) as you see, - last step is to show that Big Bang was not the start of everything, there was something before..- And at this point you have to ask what was that something" and why did it explode?

We have already discussed that last aspect of the theory, I have not much more to add.
Click to expand...

Big bounce theories have been around for a longtime. Now with multiverse and M-brane theories also compatible with both SR and GR.

Problem is you've skipped a step (apparently deliberately), the one where you actually, definitively, consistently (internally and externally) and quantitatively work out the properties, relations and mechanics of your elastic space. Time to stop daydreaming and get to work.

ETA:

Sorry it was John Michell in 1783 that first proposed dark stars, Laplace was later.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
ETA:

Sorry it was John Michell in 1783 that first proposed dark stars, Laplace was later.
Click to expand...
Please take note, Bjarne. That is what you do when you notice, or are informed of, an error in your work
 
The Man said:
...
Problem is you've skipped a step (apparently deliberately), the one where you actually, definitively, consistently (internally and externally) and quantitatively work out the properties, relations and mechanics of your elastic space. Time to stop daydreaming and get to work.
...
Click to expand...
Hilite by Daylightstar
The hilited would nearly imply a choice on Bjarne's part but Bjarne has no choice, he can not (ever hope to) do the actual work an actual scientific theory would require.
 
rwguinn said:
Somebody owes me a new laptop and a phone. I laughed so hard and explosively bit of 'em went in the pool...
Click to expand...

That's your own responsibility. While knowingly reading authors like that on an electronic device one should keep all liquids away from said device or keep said device away from all liquids :D
 
Bjarne said:
I understand it very well, and this is why you can't get me trapped, - even though there is such much, (you call science) that is threaten to be thrown out of the window.
Click to expand...
Hilite by Daylightstar
By you and only you. No data or work done makes any such threat.
This is why your idea is not taken seriously.
 
The Man said:
Uhm, you do understand that Special Relativity is just a particular case of relativity (inertial reference frames) and that General Relativity is just the general application to include also non-inertial frames? In other words General Relativity explicitly subsumes Special Relativity. As "SR frames" are a subset of "GR frames" they are by your assertion above "allright". Again do please get back to use when you can at least agree with just yourself.
Click to expand...

Both SR and GR are about (propotional) reality transformation. So simple is that.
 
The Man said:
Incorrect, if you want to claim that you don't understand them without your "overall motion reference frame" that's fine and perhaps something we can help you with. However, your limitations do not imbue anyone else with the same lack of understanding.
Click to expand...
Lets see who soon need help


Once again, is your elastic space flat or curved? As there is nothing inherent in elasticity that prevents curvature it would have to be a consequence of how your elastic space actually works. By all means please let us know when you actually work that out and please show your work.
Click to expand...
Nothing mysterious about it, elastic, not curved
 
The Man said:
No one has to trap you, you do that yourself as you just can't agree with yourself. We keep trying to give you the tools to get yourself out of the corners you keep painting yourself into.
Click to expand...

The only problem is that you cannot distancing from the old collective obsessions
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
No, a computer calibrate all clocks automatically, regardless whether you like it or not..
Click to expand...

If I'm correctly following the thread, this is still about GPS clocks. Again, this statement demonstrates a profound misunderstanding about how GPS works. Yes, there are computers involved, but they don't simply "calibrate the clocks." The computers (with human sign-off) forecast where the GPS spacecraft will be for the next day (and much longer, with diminishing accuracy) and upload that. It's not simply a clock correction, it's multiple sets of orbit elements and clock corrections to be used in the future. If the orbit models were not extremely accurate and well-understood, this technique would not work.

What was your basis for your assertion?

(trying not to get myself a yellow card, so I'll stop there)
 
The Man said:
GR is not the cause of gravity it is simply a general application of special relativity which is a modification of Galilean invariance with the speed of light as an upper limit. Matter/Energy is the cause of gravity. What GR does, quite successfully, is to relate that collection of Matter/Energy by the stress energy tensor to the curvature of space time and thus the motion of bodies and the coordinate values of the measurement of events.
Click to expand...
I mean GR is not the correct theory to explain the cause of gravity..
This part is even not a theory, only a postulate.
 
dasmiller said:
If I'm correctly following the thread, this is still about GPS clocks. Again, this statement demonstrates a profound misunderstanding about how GPS works. Yes, there are computers involved, but they don't simply "calibrate the clocks." The computers (with human sign-off) forecast where the GPS spacecraft will be for the next day (and much longer, with diminishing accuracy) and upload that. It's not simply a clock correction, it's multiple sets of orbit elements and clock corrections to be used in the future. If the orbit models were not extremely accurate and well-understood, this technique would not work.

What was your basis for your assertion?

(trying not to get myself a yellow card, so I'll stop there)
Click to expand...

If we really already knew everything about satellites (and GPS orbit) so exact , why in hell then test altitude and time dilation on board ISS... (?)

Fellows take a brake, - relax, - and you will all soon see the scientific ISS orbit and time dilation test will demonstrate that SR in its present form is nothing but mass brainwashed obsessions.
 
Bjarne said:
Both SR and GR are about (propotional) reality transformation. So simple is that.
Click to expand...


While there is no "reality transformation" in any form of relativity even Galilean relativity has a, well, Galilean transformation. What is transformed are the coordinate values (from one frame to another) of events. This is a consequence of the basis of relativity, that the laws of physics are frame independent. For SR and GR there is the addition of the speed of light as a frame independent upper limit.

Are you opposed to such transformations? If not then by your own assertions you won't be opposed to SR and GR. If so then please provide your transformation equations.
 
Bjarne said:
Lets see who soon need help
Click to expand...

Soon? You evidently need help now and people here are trying to give you some.




Bjarne said:
Nothing mysterious about it, elastic, not curved
Click to expand...

How would you know? Have you worked out the quantitative properties and mechanics? If so then please provided them. If not then you're just making a baseless assertion.
 
Bjarne said:
Sorry I lie'
Computers are doing this, without asking any question .
Like the clock is set on you pc too, without asking anyone
Click to expand...

Can I add computers to the list of things you know nothing of, then? Computers do absolutely nothing unless someone programs them to do it.

That was a very silly reply, Bjarne. How did they program those computers if they didn't know the actual science?

Hans
 
Bjarne said:
I understand it very well, and this is why you can't get me trapped, - even though there is such much, (you call science) that is threaten to be thrown out of the window.
Click to expand...

So you can answer why we should forget good science in favor of ideas you cannot explain?

Hans
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom