• 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.
Bjarne said:
because this is much much much more easy
Click to expand...

That's not science, that's laziness. Picking the "Easy" route doesn't mean you've picked one that reflects reality. The four humors are an objectively easier theory to understand and work with than germ theory, but that doesn't make it a better reflection of reality or more effective at actually preventing and treating disease.

Bjarne said:
And how many was humiliated first ?
Click to expand...

Humiliation is not a necessary component of scientific advancement. The process can be brutal, in part because changes need to be tested and proven before being accepted. If a paradigm shift isn't being put through the wringer than it's being handled too delicately. That said, what are YOU doing, other than arguing online, to advance your theories? If you have confidence in your conclusions you should be writing and submitting papers for publication.
 
Dancing David said:
And the fact that you ignore data which contradicts you shows what exactly?
Click to expand...

It shows me he'd be terrible at writing an actual research paper. One of the things you're supposed to do when writing for publication is anticipate and address as many of the reasonable objections or concerns as you can. If he can't even do that in this thread, then any paper he writes is likely to be rejected or, if published, vivisected.
 
halleyscomet said:
It shows me he'd be terrible at writing an actual research paper. One of the things you're supposed to do when writing for publication is anticipate and address as many of the reasonable objections or concerns as you can. If he can't even do that in this thread, then any paper he writes is likely to be rejected or, if published, vivisected.
Click to expand...
I know next to nothing about the subject, so I've been paying attention to the logic and delivery. It seems to me that there are two possibilities behind Bjarne's presentation here. The more charitable is that he's testing various components of his hypothesis; the more likely is that he's aiming at the demographic that figures "If its on the Internet it must be true."

But then, there's also a non-zero chance that he's having us all on.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
 
halleyscomet said:
That's not science, that's laziness.
Click to expand...
No it is lazy science, why hurry ?
If Moses not will come to the mountain the mountain must come to Moses

Humiliation is not a necessary component of scientific advancement. The process can be brutal, in part because changes need to be tested and proven before being accepted.
Click to expand...
But rejecting,. - for example dark matter exist as matter, - is absolutely forbidden.
Nobody wants to hear about an idea that goes radical against the holy omniscient mainstream.
If a paradigm shift isn't being put through the wringer than it's being handled too delicately.
Click to expand...
Try to tell this to the sect that decided that the universe really is accelerating.

That said, what are YOU doing, other than arguing online, to advance your theories? If you have confidence in your conclusions you should be writing and submitting papers for publication.
Click to expand...
http://pubs.sciepub.com/faac/2/1/3/
 
Last edited:
halleyscomet said:
It shows me he'd be terrible at writing an actual research paper. One of the things you're supposed to do when writing for publication is anticipate and address as many of the reasonable objections or concerns as you can. If he can't even do that in this thread, then any paper he writes is likely to be rejected or, if published, vivisected.
Click to expand...

Well, I am a cow not a grandmother!
 
halleyscomet said:
Does that mean he's doing preliminary research with the goal of writing a paper, or that he's engaging in online onanism?
Click to expand...

Oh no, no research involved whatsoever. Too much work and he doesn't know where to start. This is especially difficult as he has nothing to research.
It all boils down to one big fat zero.

Or make that a tiny insignificant zero.
 
Bjarne said:
But rejecting,. - for example dark matter exist as matter, - is absolutely forbidden.
Click to expand...

What arguments do you have that it's not?

Bjarne said:
Nobody wants to hear about an idea that goes radical against the holy omniscient mainstream.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Ideas that upset the apple cart are how scientists get funding. It sounds like you're taking the naturally adversarial nature of challenging existing theories a bit too personally.

Bjarne said:
Try to tell this to the sect that decided that the universe really is accelerating.
Click to expand...

What's your argument that it's not?

Bjarne said:
http://pubs.sciepub.com/faac/2/1/3/
Click to expand...

Well now, I must admit that I did not expect. I'll have to take a look.
 
Bjarne said:
http://pubs.sciepub.com/faac/2/1/3/
Click to expand...

Introduction

As technical development and experience have progressed during the decades, we have thus gained a greater insight into the nature of the cosmos; however we are constantly facing new discoveries that simply cannot be implemented in the prevailing paradigm. For some time now it has become increasingly apparent that the field of astrophysics requires new knowledge in order to understand and solve the growing list of perplexing kinematic anomalies and phenomena’s(sic) that have so far been discovered.
Click to expand...

Interesting start. I look forward to reading what specific phenomena are unexplained by relativity and how your theory provides an explanation that's still consistent with the rest of the cosmos.

This new theory will solve the long list of mysteries in a very natural way, which so far we have unfortunately failed to properly understand.
Click to expand...

That's a tall claim, and it's poorly worded, even if true. A quick editorial note, if you want to express that idea you should do so more humbly with a few caveats. Phrases like "will attempt to" and "Offers potential mechanisms" will get you further with your readers than a frankly prideful bold assertion. You're already alienating your readers and putting them on the defensive with your really crappy introduction.
 
Bjarne said:
http://pubs.sciepub.com/faac/2/1/3/
Click to expand...

Nice format, Bjarne. Really a good imitation of a Scientific article. Of course, that medium does not impose any restrictions on submissions, so anything goes there.

Too bad you offer no evidence. Even your old lie about relativistic resistance is there. :rolleyes:

And the silly graph of a "solar eclipse" where the moon is not aligned with the sun. :p

Yeah well, guess you won't get a Nobel for that one, but keep trying.

Hans
 
Bjarne: An irrational "1000 years" rant insulting every scientist that ever lived

Bjarne said:
1000 years of stubborn arrogant fanatic brainwashed omniscient intolerance, against everyone that dares to think against the mass hysteric indoctrinated mainstreams obsessions / paradigm
Click to expand...
10 August 2016 Bjarne: An irrational "1000 years" rant insulting every scientist that ever lived and even science itself :eek:!
 
Bjarne: An ignorant, irrelvant statement about quantum theory

Bjarne said:
Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways.
Click to expand...
10 August 2016 Bjarne: An ignorant, irrelevant statement about quantum theory.
If you had ever learned about QM then you would have learned that QM states that the electrons in an atom are always real electrons. That is what first year physics student do - solve QM for an electron in a potential well to get electron orbitals.

Classically photons do not interact. Solving quantum electrodynamics as a perturbation allows a photon to fluctuate into a charged fermion–antifermion pair and so predicts weak interactions.

10 August 2016 Bjarne: The repeated delusion that gravity is a byproduct of the strong force.
The strong force is not related to mass. Gravity is related to mass.

10 August 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that Einstein would be so deluded to think that gravity is a byproduct of the strong force :jaw-dropp!
A unified theory of forces is that todays forces are separate forces that used to be the same in the past n the very, very early universe.

Ending with a rant with idiotic numbers.
10 August 2016 Bjarne: The evidence is that universe is 4.9% normal matter, 26% dark matter and the rest dark energy.
We have measured the dark matter and dark energy. What is missing is about half of the normal matter. That is 97.5% of the universe has been detected.
 
Bjarne: A delusion of dark matter as matter "against the holy omniscient mainstream"

Bjarne said:
But rejecting,. - for example dark matter exist as matter, - is absolutely forbidden. ...
Click to expand...
That is a totally ignorant statement, Bjarne.
The consensus is that dark matter is matter but non-baryonic (no electromagnetic interactions).
The idea of dark matter as normal matter has been extensively investigated by scientists, e.g. MACHOs. Not finding enough dark matter as normal matter is part of the strong scientific evidence that dark matter is not normal matter :jaw-dropp!
10 August 2016 Bjarne: A delusion of dark matter as matter being "against the holy omniscient mainstream".

10 August 2016 Bjarne: An ignorant "SR will begin to fall apart already in the years 2016 to 2017" delusion on what looks like a new "journal".
That Frontiers of Astronomy, Astrophysics and Cosmology would let garbage about the Pioneer anomalies that do not exist :eek:! be published shoes that their "peer review" is really, really bad or even does not exist. There are equally dubious "papers" in the journal suggesting that its "peer review" claim is a lie, e.g.
  • 'Rethinking the Binding Mechanism between the Earth and the Moon' by a couple of ignorant computer people!
  • Word salad abstracts in papers by a Jay D. Rynbrandt who has the stupid idea that black holes are not black!
  • An idiotic 'imaginary numbers are real thus a multiverse explaining dark matter and dark energy' paper.
  • An abysmal attempt to shoehorn the gravitational constant into nuclear physics!
So it looks like Bjarne has found a group of ignorant cranks to show his paper to.
 
Last edited:
halleyscomet said:
That's a tall claim, and it's poorly worded, even if true. A quick editorial note, if you want to express that idea you should do so more humbly with a few caveats. Phrases like "will attempt to" and "Offers potential mechanisms" will get you further with your readers than a frankly prideful bold assertion. You're already alienating your readers and putting them on the defensive with your really crappy introduction.
Click to expand...

I am attacking the theory of relativity, you have to take the big hammer out of the toolbox, the small hammer will not do it.

And this is only the first part, later we will be forced to understand the nature of space better, and therefore sooner or later one more truth must be told, - the universe is not expanding, -again you need the sledgehammer.

Its very differcult to be humble, also because a whole world of innocent people are brainwashed day after day,.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom