Watch not go - if watch go no stop. If no stop you no go. You need gowatch!!!!!
The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017
- Thread starter Bjarne
- Start date
- Status
Watch not go - if watch go no stop. If no stop you no go. You need gowatch!!!!!
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
Liar
39 seconds into the video, Professor George Etstahiou states the following
Quote..
“As we see this strange pattern that not is expected in i inflation theory, it may be we have been failed that inflation didn’t happen. “
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eavab9siYg
This is a HUGE POSSIBLE TRURNAROUND Amigo Hans..
Only few years ago a Nobel price was given for supporting the opposite view.
Such is the achievements what call “last decimal” achievements
HA HA HA HA how funny.
Its a possible complete turnaround, - even village idiots are intelligent enough to understand.
The university of Cambridge is a university and here Planck / ESA data is analyzed , and this is what I claimed all the time.
You seems to be very busy to lie and put words in my mouth I never said.
SHAME..
You should you know better, also if you are one of these living in a village with lot of cows right outside your windows right ?.
HA HA HA HA how funny
Is it really possible to lie so much for your self?'
May god forbid it
Last edited:
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
Orbit Accuracy Requirement for ABYSS: The Space Station Radar Altimeter to Map Global Bathymetry
https://www.researchgate.net/public...tion_Radar_Altimeter_to_Map_Global_Bathymetry
Useless crap me lad, old feces. Is there any chance you will ever try to learn from your oh, so many betters????? If there was a god, I know what it would forbid: rampant silliness is one of them.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
No he does not say that. I will grant you that he speaks with a (Greek?) accent and I know English is not your prime competence, but he essentially says that inflation might not have happened quite as we thought.
AND then the video continues to show an inflation scenario.
But, Bjarne, I thought you didn't trust universities? Didn't you once say that they brainwash student and fill their heads with concrete? Why are you suddenly citing a university?
I pointed out that ESA is not a university, and it isn't. Of course they work with the universities. .. Sorry, Bjarne, I keep forgetting that the science world is not your realm.
Hans
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
That soon the ISS can count all cows in Bulgaria
I think based on the noted that Bjarne did go onto university property somewhere and was indeed treated as he describes. His words, not mine!!!
Last edited:
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
One more load of rubbish, this is not what he say, but exactly as I wrote
It's amazing you can twist everything you read and hear to such extent.
Everybody can watch the video for them self and witnes you are full of .......
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eavab9siYg
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Bjarne, you are simply looking for gaps (Anomaly/mystery hunting) to fill with your irrational ideas.
Many cranks do this.
And some just keep pointlessly turning and turning as if they actually had a purpose.
I will try this again Bj, real scientists may post or be posted on it, but what is posted is not the scholarly heavy work they are doing, it is dumbed down for the people who would go to You Tube for their science. YouTube is not a trustworthy source of scientific information - actual, peer reviewed journals in the appropriate fields are the only good and legitimate sources (other than their/related textbooks and the journals tend to be cutting edge with the texts a year or more behind ).
And, just a friendly, on his worst day ever MRC_Hans can run rings around you on this material. Hell, I can to a much lesser degree, but you bore me so quickly (Hans is much nicer than I) and if I did not want to keep people actually interested in science from falling for your errors and misstatements I would not be bothering with you and those so like you. You are interesting to play with but that is about it (I use interestinga bit differently than many others do). Have a nice life!!!
Daylightstar
Philosopher
Sure, they have to, to keep their fantasy going. It's the only way to 'make it exist'.
Peregrinus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2015
- Messages
- 1,213
Doesn't need or want to. There are already satellites in orbit - have been for some years now - doing just that sort of menial task as swell as reading your vehicle's registration plate and plotting wakes of ships at sea and the latest hardened concrete installations.
Bjarne
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,075
News today
Former NASA Physicist Disputes Einstein’s Relativity Theory
I believe if Einstein were alive today, he would take advantage of the modern techniques and the modern instruments we have and he would wind up disproving his own theory,” said Dr. Dowdye, a physicist and laser optics engineer who retired from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. He is an independent researcher and founder of Pure Classical Physics Research and he is a member of The American Physics Society.
The essence...
This substance, plasma, was virtually unknown in Einstein’s day. We have not seen evidence of light bending around massive objects in deep space that do not have plasma around them.
Gravitational lensing isn’t about the gravitational field bending space-time, as relativity describes it, said Dowdye. It’s about the gravitational field affecting plasma along a gradient; the plasma in turn affects the path light takes.
“The scientists who support relativity are either unaware of this phenomenon or they don’t want you to know about this. This is bad news for them,” said Dowdye. “According to relativity, light bending should be everywhere you have gravitation.” If gravitation exists around an object that doesn’t have plasma around it, the light should still bend, according to relativity theory. This doesn’t happen, said Dowdye.
Read more
http://osnetdaily.com/2016/07/former-nasa-physicist-disputes-einsteins-relativity-theory/
Former NASA Physicist Disputes Einstein’s Relativity Theory
I believe if Einstein were alive today, he would take advantage of the modern techniques and the modern instruments we have and he would wind up disproving his own theory,” said Dr. Dowdye, a physicist and laser optics engineer who retired from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. He is an independent researcher and founder of Pure Classical Physics Research and he is a member of The American Physics Society.
The essence...
This substance, plasma, was virtually unknown in Einstein’s day. We have not seen evidence of light bending around massive objects in deep space that do not have plasma around them.
Gravitational lensing isn’t about the gravitational field bending space-time, as relativity describes it, said Dowdye. It’s about the gravitational field affecting plasma along a gradient; the plasma in turn affects the path light takes.
“The scientists who support relativity are either unaware of this phenomenon or they don’t want you to know about this. This is bad news for them,” said Dowdye. “According to relativity, light bending should be everywhere you have gravitation.” If gravitation exists around an object that doesn’t have plasma around it, the light should still bend, according to relativity theory. This doesn’t happen, said Dowdye.
Read more
http://osnetdaily.com/2016/07/former-nasa-physicist-disputes-einsteins-relativity-theory/
Last edited:
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
From that text:
That is factually wrong. It may be a journalistic simplification, but it is wrong. Light does not "take the fastest path", it follows a straight line. However, the speed of light is different in different media, and when a beam of light passes from one medium to another (in this case 'mediums' are masses of air with different temperatures) at any angle different from 90deg, it will be refracted (or even reflected). This is also how lenses work.
When light passes through a (collimating) lens it is so that the light that passes the central parts of the lens has the shortest way to travel, but it travels through more glass where it travels slower, whereas the light that passes through the outer parts has longer to travel but travels through less glass, hence faster. The end result is that all parts of the light beam has the same travel time.
I am not sure what case the guy in the link is making, but he says that gravitational lensing has not been observed around objects that did not have plasma, which is rather obvious since gravitational lensing is only observed around extremely heavy objects (star class objects), and such objects invariably have plasma. So his statement seems to be equal to saying that rain only happens under rain clouds.
Anyhow, Bjarne, I really don't see what you are getting at. Science is ALWAYS questioning its own results. To try to topple old theories is really the raison d'etre of science. However, none of this supports YOUR ideas. Instead of bickering about possible gaps in science, you should seek to VALIDATE your ideas. There was a time when you were willing to make experiments. Not very effective experiments, but at least you had the will.
How about trying to formulate the predictions of your ideas? Not something like "the theory of relativity will be toppled soon", because even if that were true, it would not support YOUR ideas, but instead something like "If my idea is correct, then we should observe ......".
Like back when you predicted a certain gravity gradient in a tall building. OK, you were wrong, but THAT was some sort of science.
Hans
That is factually wrong. It may be a journalistic simplification, but it is wrong. Light does not "take the fastest path", it follows a straight line. However, the speed of light is different in different media, and when a beam of light passes from one medium to another (in this case 'mediums' are masses of air with different temperatures) at any angle different from 90deg, it will be refracted (or even reflected). This is also how lenses work.
When light passes through a (collimating) lens it is so that the light that passes the central parts of the lens has the shortest way to travel, but it travels through more glass where it travels slower, whereas the light that passes through the outer parts has longer to travel but travels through less glass, hence faster. The end result is that all parts of the light beam has the same travel time.
I am not sure what case the guy in the link is making, but he says that gravitational lensing has not been observed around objects that did not have plasma, which is rather obvious since gravitational lensing is only observed around extremely heavy objects (star class objects), and such objects invariably have plasma. So his statement seems to be equal to saying that rain only happens under rain clouds.
Anyhow, Bjarne, I really don't see what you are getting at. Science is ALWAYS questioning its own results. To try to topple old theories is really the raison d'etre of science. However, none of this supports YOUR ideas. Instead of bickering about possible gaps in science, you should seek to VALIDATE your ideas. There was a time when you were willing to make experiments. Not very effective experiments, but at least you had the will.
How about trying to formulate the predictions of your ideas? Not something like "the theory of relativity will be toppled soon", because even if that were true, it would not support YOUR ideas, but instead something like "If my idea is correct, then we should observe ......".
Like back when you predicted a certain gravity gradient in a tall building. OK, you were wrong, but THAT was some sort of science.
Hans
Last edited:
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,306
oh, I'll just write a book about my theory instead of trying to get it published in a respectable journal.
and loads of plasma astrophysicists have not found that the optically thin plasma can do that?
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
Relativity ain't just about gravitational lensing and even if Dr. Dowdye doesn't know or has forgotten that, others including you don't need to be or do likewise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_quantum_chemistry
Please explain such relativistic corrections by just plasma or your elastic space.
Unless you are now asserting that time dilation is not valid or is due to the presence of plasma then there is still a minimum time (or minimum proper time) path (or geodesic) even without plasma.
In other words this doesn't help you. I once again sincerely urge you to focus on working on developing your own notions instead of simply grabbing onto and posting anything that simply opposes some notion you don't like.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Bjarne, listen to the narrative at 27 . 34 secs.
Look at the model at 1:50.
It is still the inflation mode, albeit with possible modifikations.
But enough of that, because the Planck data shows something else: YOU claim that we are moving through a universal velocity frame. You even claimed that the CMB could be used as reference for this movement.
Now, Planck has made the most precise map of the CMB ever, but there is not the slightest hint of any movement against the CMB. No intensity weighting, no doppler shift.
What do you think this shows? (Hint: It shows that you were wrong.)
Hans
- Status