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

[The Man]

No comrade Hans
This prediction is pretty Unique, - nothing can compete with it.
The predicted anomaly will gradually increase and culminate when moving straight north, and after that decrease..

Actually 'Relativity is wrong and my assertion are right' isn't a unique prediction around here and never pretty.

The day that SR is brought down, remember that it was new physic, - which mean the science of relativistic resistance, - that brought me to the conclusion that SR will fall apart.

Again what about SR do you expect to be "brought down" if you can't specifically say then you might not actually oppose SR.

Evidence is coming your way, smoke a cigar and wait and see fellow..

Again evidence of what? Again what exactly do you oppose in SR? Inertial frame invariance of the laws of physics? Consistency of the speed of light in a vacuum from an inertial frame? The speed of light as a maximum? ETA: The formalization of the coordinate transformations?

No it mean that since I was right according to the error with SR, maybe the most concrete hard core also should listen to what is predicted wrong with GR

Again what "error with SR"? If you can't say then you don't know of any error. See above if you don't oppose any of those postulates of SR then you assert no error with SR

If you had understood the theory you would also have understood why the cause of the Allais effect is solved, and you would have wrote what you just did.. The theory predict very weak insignificant effect close to the poles.

If you understood SR you might actually be able to assert what part of it you think is in error, but of course that requires paying attention to those few details of, well, SR.

 

[The Man]

If a theory very exactly step by step can predict something completely unexpected, - this is scientific evidence, - because this is what the scientific method is about.. until someone have better evidence able to disprove it.

Great so give us that "very exactly step by step" quantitative prediction of your theory. I caution you though, as that requires "very exactly step by step" details. Time to get both halves of your brain going and actually get down to the details of your "theory".

 

[halleyscomet]

The left brain half see details and the right brain half see, - the whole.
Our paradigm is as you wrote dominated by left-brains “scientist” , - and the problem is therefore that the overall perspective is lost.
We have no overall perspective at all.
For example more than 97% of the universe, “we” have no idea what it really is about (dark matter and dark energy)
My mission is not to get lost in details, but to get the left brain on the track again.



The right brain can see when it all comes together, the left brain not


In Denmark and the rest of the communist world, the best is when we all are equal stupid, - equal unimaginative , equal initiative solve (and equal poor), such attitude also have dominated science the last 1000 years.

What a bunch of irrelevant blather.

This is science we're talking about, cold, hard facts. Even if your "right brain / left brain" pop-psychology babbling were accurate, it wouldn't matter. You're making excuses, nothing more.

Its already done, there is nothing more important to add.

If that's the best you can do, then your "theory" is already dead. You don't even BEGIN to approach the MATH needed to support ANY of your ideas.

No comrade Hans
This prediction is pretty Unique, - nothing can compete with it.
The predicted anomaly will gradually increase and culminate when moving straight north, and after that decrease..

Nonsense. Your "paper" doesn't even define WHAT data would prove your theory. Your entire argument boils down to, "LOOK! An anomaly in a relativity experiment! I AM RIIIIIGHT!!!!!" At least when Creationists use that line of reasoning they're dealing with a relativity binary set of options, either there is a God who created life or there isn't. You however are holding up Star Trek Technobabble as if it were the only viable alternative if an anomaly of some kind was found.

 

[Dancing David]

If a theory very exactly step by step can predict something completely unexpected, - this is scientific evidence, - because this is what the scientific method is about.. until someone have better evidence able to disprove it.

You mean like the fact that the GPS satellite data disagrees with you?

 

[halleyscomet]

ISS data will soon cool you down

Says the man whose "theory" can't even account for the orbit of Mercury, nor even understand WHY that's important in trying to refute special Relativity.

Your paper lacks any of the math, predictions or data that would be needed to give it legs to stand on. This means it's going to be roundly ignored by competent scientists. Even if your theory is correct, your name will never be remembered in connection to it. Your profound incompetence at communicating your ideas means your ideas will either have to be rediscovered by someone else or plagiarized by someone who can do the math to back up your claims. It would hardly be plagiarism, as someone writing a paper that actually conveyed your ideas completely would be doing 90% of the work, if not more.

Your ego and refusal to reexamine your communication style is going to doom you to scientific irrelevance.

 

[halleyscomet]

Great so give us that "very exactly step by step" quantitative prediction of your theory. I caution you though, as that requires "very exactly step by step" details. Time to get both halves of your brain going and actually get down to the details of your "theory".

He's already refused to provide such, apparently convinced that the Star Trek Technobabble "paper" already linked to is enough.

The sheer LAZINESS in failing to even TRY to provide something concrete and testable is astounding.

 

[The Man]

He's already refused to provide such, apparently convinced that the Star Trek Technobabble "paper" already linked to is enough.

The sheer LAZINESS in failing to even TRY to provide something concrete and testable is astounding.

Yep, who knows maybe 'space tension' actually has some merits, but Bjarne doesn't even know if his elastic space can be curved or not. As he has never bothered to work out even the simplest quantitative details. Heck, I even gave him links to the formalization of elasticity in materials that he might try to apply those methods to his elastic space. I guess I'll never understand why given the vast resources on the internet and help even people here are willing to give. That some just can't seem to be bothered to actually do the work on their own notions. I remember one here who actually thought his speculative mussing were the 'hard part' and it was up to others to actually work out the details.

 

[slyjoe]

No comrade Hans
This prediction is pretty Unique, - nothing can compete with it.
The predicted anomaly will gradually increase and culminate when moving straight north, and after that decrease..

You do know that ISS never moves straight north, right?

 

[Bjarne]

Actually 'Relativity is wrong and my assertion are right' isn't a unique prediction around here and never pretty.

Again what about SR do you expect to be "brought down" if you can't specifically say then you might not actually oppose SR.

Again evidence of what? Again what exactly do you oppose in SR? Inertial frame invariance of the laws of physics? Consistency of the speed of light in a vacuum from an inertial frame? The speed of light as a maximum? ETA: The formalization of the coordinate transformations?

Again what "error with SR"? If you can't say then you don't know of any error. See above if you don't oppose any of those postulates of SR then you assert no error with SR

If you understood SR you might actually be able to assert what part of it you think is in error, but of course that requires paying attention to those few details of, well, SR.

Amazing that you still haven't understood that simple point.....that is...

SR can only be correctly understood in a absolute motion reference frame. This is what the ISS Measurement will prove..

 

[Bjarne]

You do know that ISS never moves straight north, right?

Notice it is north relative to ecliptica..
But yes still not straight north
Anyway we shall not aspect full anomaly effect...

 

[Bjarne]

What a bunch of irrelevant blather.

This is science we're talking about, cold, hard facts. Even if your "right brain / left brain" pop-psychology babbling were accurate, it wouldn't matter. You're making excuses, nothing more.

If that's the best you can do, then your "theory" is already dead. You don't even BEGIN to approach the MATH needed to support ANY of your ideas.

Nonsense. Your "paper" doesn't even define WHAT data would prove your theory. Your entire argument boils down to, "LOOK! An anomaly in a relativity experiment! I AM RIIIIIGHT!!!!!" At least when Creationists use that line of reasoning they're dealing with a relativity binary set of options, either there is a God who created life or there isn't. You however are holding up Star Trek Technobabble as if it were the only viable alternative if an anomaly of some kind was found.

The theory is so simple and the math too, I wonder what exactly more you want to calculate..

 

[halleyscomet]

Yep, who knows maybe 'space tension' actually has some merits, but Bjarne doesn't even know if his elastic space can be curved or not. As he has never bothered to work out even the simplest quantitative details. Heck, I even gave him links to the formalization of elasticity in materials that he might try to apply those methods to his elastic space. I guess I'll never understand why given the vast resources on the internet and help even people here are willing to give. That some just can't seem to be bothered to actually do the work on their own notions. I remember one here who actually thought his speculative mussing were the 'hard part' and it was up to others to actually work out the details.

I'm reminded of the battle between the Irreligiosophy podcast and Kirk Hastings. One of the MANY things discussed while reviewing Kirk's book "What is Truth?" was the Apologetic writer's inability to understand, despite having it explained multiple times, that the second Law of Thermodynamics was an equation, and the at the text Kirk was going by was a layman's explanation of the equation, and a bad one at that.

I think Bjarne is suffering from a similar misconception. He's confusing the summary of special relativity with the actual theory. Because he only reads the layman oriented text, he doesn't realize that the underlying MATH is the critical proof of the theory. As a result I don't think he comprehends, even at a vague theoretical level, that the MATH he's so blithely dismissing as unimportant is in fact the core of the science he needs to address. He's honestly and sincerely confusing the layman's summary of the theory with the theory itself.

We can compare Bjarne and Einstein to clock makers. Einstein has crafted the greatest clock of his generation. It's beautiful, incredibly accurate and works flawlessly. Decades after the make's death, people are STILL finding new features and capabilities in the clock they never realized were there. Bjarne thinks he can build a better clock, so he gets to work building a box, slapping on some paint and sitting back to await the accolades. This "clock" may have hands, but they don't move. The clock has no internal gears or circuits, no mechanism for telling time, just a box he's painted freehand, and painted badly at that. If he cut a hole in the side it could be mistaken for a birdhouse built by a child.

And he's mocking us for not using HIS clock to tell time instead of Einstein's.

The theory is so simple and the math too, I wonder what exactly more you want to calculate..

Start with using your theory to calculate the orbit of Mercury.

 

[The Man]

Amazing that you still haven't understood that simple point.....that is...

SR can only be correctly understood in a absolute motion reference frame. This is what the ISS Measurement will prove..

It is amazing that you still haven't understood that nothing in SR precludes you from preferring some frame of reference for whatever reason. Unless you are claiming that the laws of physics are different in your inertial "absolute motion reference frame" then you are not opposing SR. Are you making such a claim?

 

[slyjoe]

...snip

We can compare Bjarne and Einstein to clock makers. Einstein has crafted the greatest clock of his generation. It's beautiful, incredibly accurate and works flawlessly. Decades after the make's death, people are STILL finding new features and capabilities in the clock they never realized were there. Bjarne thinks he can build a better clock, so he gets to work building a box, slapping on some paint and sitting back to await the accolades. This "clock" may have hands, but they don't move. The clock has no internal gears or circuits, no mechanism for telling time, just a box he's painted freehand, and painted badly at that. If he cut a hole in the side it could be mistaken for a birdhouse built by a child.
...snip

The only fault with this analogy is that the Bjarne clock would be right twice a day. The theory, not so much.

 

[halleyscomet]

The theory is so simple and the math too, I wonder what exactly more you want to calculate..

I keep bringing up the orbit of Mercury, and you keep ignoring it. Perhaps you don't understanding WHY the orbit of Mercury is important in this context. Allow me to link to some succinct articles that will give you enough of an overview to understand why I keep bringing it up.

In this video lecture, Neil deGrasse Tyson, America's most noted astrophysicist, discusses the orbit of mercury and its connection to Einstein's theory of relativity and a hypothetical planet called Vulcan.

The 200-year-old mystery of Mercury's orbit — solved!

It wasn't too long after Newton published his laws of motion that people noticed something was off about them. To be specific, they were off by the orbit of an entire planet. And they remained off until Einstein, and general relativity, explained why Mercury moves the way it does.

In a more general sense, you'll also need to address some of the Tests of general relativity. You're trying to overthrow a massive body of work with a single paper that's light on data and predictions. There's a LOT of evidence supporting Relativity, and a few odd results from one test won't overthrow it.

 

[Bjarne]

Says the man whose "theory" can't even account for the orbit of Mercury, nor even understand WHY that's important in trying to refute special Relativity.

Your paper lacks any of the math, predictions or data that would be needed to give it legs to stand on. This means it's going to be roundly ignored by competent scientists. Even if your theory is correct, your name will never be remembered in connection to it. Your profound incompetence at communicating your ideas means your ideas will either have to be rediscovered by someone else or plagiarized by someone who can do the math to back up your claims. It would hardly be plagiarism, as someone writing a paper that actually conveyed your ideas completely would be doing 90% of the work, if not more.

The theory also shows what the real cause of Mercury's perihelion anomaly really is. It require fairly sophisticated software. The cause of Mercury's orbit anomaly is only kinematic , shortly spoken because motion in space depend on the level og "space-tension"..
The cause of flyby anomalies is the exact same.

Your ego and refusal to reexamine your communication style is going to doom you to scientific irrelevance.

Rubbish, - sooner or later intelligent people will read and understand the theory, - (but most likely first after SR as predicted have fallen apart) - They will understand that it was not necessary to do more like I already did.

Shortly spoken, you can pull the cow to the water source, but you cannot force it to drink.

But you see one day few intelligent cows will understand that I offer the cleanest and most tasty water, - that day the many more intelligent cows will begin to drink, and Uhhhmm maybe it was not so bad... After that more stupid cows will also begin to drink

 

[halleyscomet]

The only fault with this analogy is that the Bjarne clock would be right twice a day. The theory, not so much.

Clearly, my analogy is flawed. Bjarne would no doubt have me throw it out in favor of a completely different analogy. I however, prefer to address the flaw that's been found, instead of throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater.

We can compare Bjarne and Einstein to clock makers. Einstein has crafted the greatest clock of his generation. It's beautiful, incredibly accurate and works flawlessly. Decades after the maker's death, people are STILL finding new features and capabilities in the clock they never realized were there. Bjarne thinks he can build a better clock, so he gets to work building a box, slapping on some paint and sitting back to await the accolades. This "clock" may have hands, but they aren't part of a clock face, instead being two left hands, traced with permanent marker on the front of the "clock." The clock has no internal gears or circuits, no mechanism for telling time, just a box he's painted freehand, and painted badly at that. If he cut a hole in the side it could be mistaken for a birdhouse built by a child.

And he's mocking us for not using HIS clock to tell time instead of Einstein's.

I am of course deliberately highlighting the difference between how science operates and how Bjarne appears to think it operates. My analogy, like a scientific theory, had a flaw. Instead of discarding the entire analogy I addressed the flaw. Just as I addressed the flaw to produce a more accurate analogy, so will scientists address any data that conflicts with Relativity in order to produce a more accurate version of the theory.

 

[slyjoe]

Sophisticated software implements math. Show the math.

 

[slyjoe]

Clearly, my analogy is flawed. Bjarne would no doubt have me throw it out in favor of a completely different analogy. I however, prefer to address the flaw that's been found, instead of throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater.



I am of course deliberately highlighting the difference between how science operates and how Bjarne appears to think it operates. My analogy, like a scientific theory, had a flaw. Instead of discarding the entire analogy I addressed the flaw. Just as I addressed the flaw to produce a more accurate analogy, so will scientists address any data that conflicts with Relativity in order to produce a more accurate version of the theory.

 

[Bjarne]

I keep bringing up the orbit of Mercury, and you keep ignoring it. Perhaps you don't understanding WHY the orbit of Mercury is important in this context. Allow me to link to some succinct articles that will give you enough of an overview to understand why I keep bringing it up.



The 200-year-old mystery of Mercury's orbit — solved!

In a more general sense, you'll also need to address some of the Tests of general relativity. You're trying to overthrow a massive body of work with a single paper that's light on data and predictions. There's a LOT of evidence supporting Relativity, and a few odd results from one test won't overthrow it.

Space is not curved, only elastic. There are no evidence what so ever, that proves that GR is the correct theory for gravity.
My mission was not to attack GR, But the theory simply brought me more and more conclusions, that I never really wanted, but you can say the theory have its own logic, - “it took me that fare.”.
But I can see you have not even read the theory, then you would know that it also solve the perihelion anomalies of Mercury

Now read the theory before you criticize

This chapter is about Mercury VIII. MASS MOTION AND RELATIVISTIC ENERGY
http://science27.com/paper.pdf