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

[MRC_Hans]

Why have you still not watch Edwards explanation for that
He is not a idiot or crank that have fall down from the moon, but a scientist good enough for NASA...

He will explain you te real cause of what you see, if you allow him to, but you never will..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kJ8gTdOsek

Bjarne, I'm not watching 45 minutes of Youtube for you. Exactly where does he say it, and what does he say?

Do I need to remind you of the "burden of proof" rule? You are challenging the accepted paradigm, you provide the evidence.

Hans

 

[Daylightstar]

In other words: You have no idea. .... Well it's easy to make a simple model if you skip all the hard stuff. Unfortunately it will have little to do with reality.

Hans

Perhaps Bjarne should make a model from clay first and then see if he can move on from there.

 

[Bjarne]

That's it? "let say the Z factor is for example 10" a guess? So you have no actual transformation. You could have just said that. Do please let us know when you actually work one out. Also observations indicate that not only the rate of expansion is increasing, the rate of that increase in the rate is also increasing. You have much work to do.

The 10" question I did not understood..
The idea that the universe is accelerering is due to a race between tension release and new tension due to re-born gravity..
There are no expansion.
The universe is most likely infinity, - infinity cannot expand

Not logic but just conjecture, however we can apply some logic to your assertions. "space tension is stretching time, as well as everything in that space, included the ruler (that must of all is space)", so space is expanding.

Still not expansion, but only space stretching because of matter is absorbing space.. Therefore space is stretching towards matter and released towards the oppesite direction

If your tension stretches space and said tension is being released, then space would be contracting. EM waves would be blue shifted.

Exactly
Today everything is more contracted compared to yesterday.
Therefore the EM-spectra from yesterday is evidence that shows that everything yesterday was less contracted. - And this is how to understand cosmological redshift..

Wait wasn't your space tension supposed to be gravity? So "When the strong force / gravity is lost in Big Bangs" your space tension is also lost.

Right the tension form the previous universe is in fact lost. But "only" with the speed of light. So if the universe is radius 1000 billion LY it will take 1000 year for gravity to be be completely lost.

Of course you simply assert that "the strong force/gravity is reborn" because your assertion of them being "lost" doesn't survive the most basic observation. Just as your conjectures don't survive the most basic application of logic to them.

Its a question of temperature, and the strong interaction is reborn. Again matter will absorb space, and here you have at the same time gravity reborn.

 

[Bjarne]

In other words: You have no idea. .... Well it's easy to make a simple model if you skip all the hard stuff. Unfortunately it will have little to do with reality.

Hans

I have a lot of idea, but no intension to waste time as i wrote.. It could be interesting, but right now I have no motivation or time.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, I'm not watching 45 minutes of Youtube for you. Exactly where does he say it, and what does he say?

Do I need to remind you of the "burden of proof" rule? You are challenging the accepted paradigm, you provide the evidence.

Hans

I have to dig deeper into his theory myself.. As I said it will be good for u2 to have some anti brainwash input at least 1 time each year.

 

[The Man]

The 10" question I did not understood..

The question was that you are just guessing.

The idea that the universe is accelerering is due to a race between tension release and new tension due to re-born gravity..

Still doesn't work, old tension plus new tension is total tension. Just old tension reducing means total tension reducing. Old tension reducing and new tension increasing just means total tension can reduce, stay the same or be increasing. If increasing then it is due to the tension that is well increasing. Reducing tension doesn't increase tension even in " a race between tension "

There are no expansion.

Then there is no stretching since stretching something expands it in that direction.

The universe is most likely infinity, - infinity cannot expand

Yet infinity can stretch? You don't seem to have thought any of this through.

Still not expansion, but only space stretching because of matter is absorbing space.. Therefore space is stretching towards matter and released towards the oppesite direction

Stretching expands, no expansion then no stretching. Also stretching that is "released towards the oppesite direction" means no resultant stretching. Again do please get back to us when you can at least agree with just yourself.

Exactly
Today everything is more contracted compared to yesterday.
Therefore the EM-spectra from yesterday is evidence that shows that everything yesterday was less contracted. - And this is how to understand cosmological redshift..

Wait so now instead of stretching now everything is more contracted? A contracted EM wave gets blue shifted. Why don't we find that, cosmological blueshift?

Right the tension form the previous universe is in fact lost. But "only" with the speed of light. So if the universe is radius 1000 billion LY it will take 1000 year for gravity to be be completely lost.

Again if it ain't gone yet then it isn't lost and if it is reducing then it doesn't contribute to an increase. Let's see your new tension is "released towards the oppesite direction" so results in zero change and your old tension is reducing so EM wave should be generally blue shifted. Why don't we find that?

Its a question of temperature, and the strong interaction is reborn. Again matter will absorb space, and here you have at the same time gravity reborn.

No, it is simply a question of you putting in the effort to work through your notions in a consistent (both internal and external) and quantitative manor. Not even a unification temperature will do that for you.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_epoch

 

[The Man]

I have a lot of idea, but no intension to waste time as i wrote.. It could be interesting, but right now I have no motivation or time.

Wait so you have no time or motivation to waste actually working on your ideas but have such time and motivation to waste posting those ideas here and even complain about your lack of time and motivation in them? Again if you have no intention to waste time on your ideas why should anyone else?

 

[RussDill]

Heh, "there is no expansion of space is infinite". Expansion works exactly the same in a bounded volume and an unbounded volume.

 

[The Man]

Heh, "there is no expansion of space is infinite". Expansion works exactly the same in a bounded volume and an unbounded volume.

Yep, as does stretching, especially stretching that is just released in the opposite direction. Certainly exemplifies the claims of a lack of motivation.

 

[Reality Check]

And this is why I wrote , - quote...

Repeating gibberish does not make it clear or coherent, Bjarne.

 

[Reality Check]

Which evidence do you have except bla bla bla bla bla bla

That your posts contain ignorance, fantasies, delusions and even some lies, Bjarne?
The RR fantasy appearing on 15 October 2009 here, continued ignorance of high school level science and digging a pit of fantasies from Bjarne (82 items of ignorance, fantasy and delusion in this thread alone!).

The evidence that you lied about inflation is linked to in my post.
3 August 2016 Bjarne: A lie based on ignorance of the evidence that is the basis for inflation and its confirmed prediction.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: The biography of Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr. at sceinceinthebible

You are lýing (again)
Edward Dowdye, is not creationist

You are lying from ignorance again, Bjarne.
4 August 2016 Bjarne: The biography of Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr. at his web site sceinceinthebible as given to you on 1 August 2016! !
Dr. Edward Henry Dowdye, Jr is an old-Earth creationist. This is not an insult - it is a fact.

The delusions in his videos and books are his denial of SR and GR.
3 August 2016 Bjarne: Cannot understand that a video from a deluded person is not valid science published in the scientific literature!

But look further in that web site at What I believe and we have:

• A delusion that Earth is the only planet in the universe with a magnetic field strong enough for a fantasy about cosmic rays preventing abiogenesis.
  Exoplanets estimated to be in the billions in the Milky way alone exist.
• The ignorant "No modern scientific method can, in all honesty, ... assign a calendar date to the time of Adam and Eve." statement.
  Modern scientific methods can rule out there being an Adam and Eve by showing that there was never a 2 person bottleneck in our past!
• The delusion that an age to the universe cannot be determined.
  Age of the universe = 13.8 billion years.
• The delusion that the Big Bang is a "direct violation of fundamental scientific principles".
  This seems to be based on the common misconception (abysmal ignorance for an ex-NASA scientist!) that the Big Bang was a physical explosion.
• The delusion that time dilation in GR is time travel!
  We could use time dilation, e.g. around a black hole, as a form of "suspended animation" to travel into the future. But we could just use suspended animation for the same effect.
  There are speculative solutions of GR that could allow time travel into the past, e.g. wormholes or Tipler cylinders.
• The delusion that the speed of light is not a limit.
• Ignorantly quoting Einstein
  ""If the velocity of light is only a tiny bit dependent on the velocity of the source, then my whole theory of Relativity and Gravitation is false." August 1913
  The many experiments testing this have not found that the speed of light in vacuum depends on the velocity of the source of the light.

 

[Reality Check]

Its a fact that you where lying, when you wrote that George said "if"

The facts are

1. the full interview has George starting with "But if" in the front of the quote.
2. the badly edited extract from that interview has an indistinct first word that I heard as "If" even before I heard the "But If" in the full interview.
3. this is the quote you lied about by removing the first word in the quote.
4. it is lying to persist with cutting out that first word, stating that it was "as", or denying what George said in the full interview.

Are you able to answer a simple question on the full interview, Bjarne:
2 August 2016 Bjarne: What does "The first results from Planck actually agree spectacularly well with this idea" mean?
This is George talking about inflation and Planck data in the full interview..

2 August 2016 Bjarne: A delusion that evidence that the inflationary model is invalid would be announced in a YouTube video.
2 August 2016 Bjarne: A lie by quote mining Professor George Etstahiou - cutting out a word he knows was spoken.
2 August 2016 Bjarne: Ignorance about inflation which is not "that the universe started with a singularity".

 

[Reality Check]

If light was observed to bend further away from a star, why do you then not show us the evidence, instead of insulting Edward Dowdye

Because I am not ignorant or deluded like Dowdye, Bjarne, or ignorant enough to ask a vague "further away from a star" question.

The scientific fact is that a star bends light at all distances from the star. The real world fact is that there are limits to the amount of bending of light that we can detect. I pointed this out in a 1 August 2016 post:

This is the idiocy of expecting stars that are light years away from Sagittarius A* to undergo gravitational lensing The angle of lensing = 4GM/rc². With M = 4 million solar masses, distances of r in light years gives infinitesimal angles.

The angle of lensing starts small and gets smaller with distance from the lensing mass. Thus there is a distance beyond which we cannot detect gravitational bending.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: A fantasy that cosmological redshift is time dilation/length expansion

The cosmological redshift Z value reveals:.....

4 August 2016 Bjarne: A fantasy that cosmological redshift is clocks running slower with an imaginary length expansion.

A z factor of 10 says that a galaxy is moving away from us at a velocity that gives a redshift of 10. There is an SR time dilation due to that velocity, e.g. we see that effect of this on Type 1a supernovae light curves.

 

[Reality Check]

It shows, VERY CLEARLY a huge gravitational lens, at least a hundred times the diameter of the star causing it, probably more.

Hi Hans - that looks like the image from Einstein ring where the central lensing object is the LRG 3-757 galaxy.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: Dowdye's statements about science show that he is "a idiot or crank ..."

He is not a idiot or crank that have fall down from the moon, but a scientist good enough for NASA...

Working for NASA or anywhere else does not stop a person from being an idiot or crank, Bjarne.

4 August 2016 Bjarne: Dowdye's ignorant and deluded statements about science show that he is "a idiot or crank that have fall down from the moon".

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne, I'm not watching 45 minutes of Youtube for you.

I watched the first 14 minutes and stopped at an overt lie of no bending for 2R and 3R (1.75 arcsec from R) by the Sun. Gravitational deflection of light: solar eclipse of 30 June 1973 II. Plate reductions. Fig. 7. Deflection versus distance has deflections measured out to 9R !

There is also an implied lie of "1.75 arcsec" at R. We cannot see any stars at the surface of the Sun, i.e. at R, so there are no measurements of the theoretical value of 1.75 arcsec. There are extrapolations of the measured deflections down to R as in Fig. 7 to give he paper's result of L = 1.66 +/- 0.18 arcsec.

@17:15: He has an uncited "publication" that predicts no deflection above 0.10R on the Sun ! So in 2012, Edward Dowdye, Jr was totally ignorant about measurements of the deflection of the Sun published in 1973. He is even ignorant abut the 1919 Eddington expedition which included stars out to 0.3R.

 

[The Man]

Forgot to mention this...

The universe is most likely infinity, - infinity cannot expand

So if the universe is radius 1000 billion LY it will take 1000 year for gravity to be be completely lost.

So which is it "most likely infinity" (when you erroneously think that will help you) or some finite radius (so you can just pretend your old gravity has some finite loss rate)? Why "1000 billion LY" for "1000 year"? Please show your work as to how you arrived at that one billion to one ratio.

 

[Bjarne]

.
Still doesn't work, old tension plus new tension is total tension. Just old tension reducing means total tension reducing. Old tension reducing and new tension increasing just means total tension can reduce, stay the same or be increasing. If increasing then it is due to the tension that is well increasing. Reducing tension doesn't increase tension even in " a race between tension "
[/url]

The universe is a limit size.
Towards the barycenter, space is stretching..
If gravity (and the strong force) is lost (due to many huge BB) space-tension will everywhere be released.
If the radius is lets say 1000 billion LY it takes 1000 billion to release that space from the center, inside the sphere of the universe.' And it takes 2000 years from the one side of the periphery to the other (diameter)..
This process will continue, until it is completed nothing can stop it.

Now lets say 380.000 years later the strong force and gravity is reborn. This will start the oppesite effect.. But because space is still not tension free at that time, its not a simple situation to deal with.

The remaining tension effect how effective matter again can pull space tension.
A certain amount of matter only have a certain force / energy . No one have said that such calculation have to be easy.