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

[Bjarne]

Sophisticated software implements math. Show the math.

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

 

[The Man]

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.

Evidently, but he isn't even getting it right just by a layman's summary.

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..

Here above he asserts some "absolute motion reference frame" which he has also asserted is just co-moving with the cosmic background radiation. So, far from being "absolute" it is just another relative frame. That he seems to think it is the only way he can correctly understand special relativity in no way imbues it with any absolute standing and is directly refuted by his evident lack of understanding of special relativity even with that frame.

 

[halleyscomet]

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.

Now, provide the calculations that this "sophisticated software" will have to run in order to prove you're right.

Give us the calculations needed to calculate "space-tension" for a given object.

Explain, and provide the equations for us to calculate, how the "space-tension" of multiple objects interact.

Please elaborate on how an object with mass in the real world can have irregularities in its orbit that are kinematic.

What exactly do you mean by "kinematic?" The context in which you're using it suggests you may have a meaning in mind other than the one science gives it.

Since Mercury can somehow be subjected to a mass-less orbital peculiarity, why are other planets not similar effected?

If there is a threshold at which a planet actually HAS enough mass for your theory to no longer apply a kinematic adjustment to it's orbit, what IS that theoretical threshold?

How do you calculate it?

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.

BWHAHAHA!!!!! Are you seriously suggesting, with all the dross and flotsam on the Internet, somebody at some distant point in the future will reach back to read one badly written paper with nothing to back it up, by a nobody who was otherwise forgotten by history, and miraculously recognize a theory someone ELSE propagated, likely using different terminology?

Well, I suppose some future version of the David Icke forums might have a lunatic that dedicated to attacking some future theory. Enjoy your nominal and transient notoriety on an obscure web forum. It's all you're ever going to get.

 

[The Man]

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.

So which is it your theory shows " what the real cause of Mercury's perihelion anomaly really is." or hasn't shown that yet becouse you still "require fairly sophisticated software"? Please get back to us when you can actually agree with just yourself.

 

[Bjarne]

Evidently, but he isn't even getting it right just by a layman's summary.

Here above he asserts some "absolute motion reference frame" which he has also asserted is just co-moving with the cosmic background radiation. So, far from being "absolute" it is just another relative frame. That he seems to think it is the only way he can correctly understand special relativity in no way imbues it with any absolute standing and is directly refuted by his evident lack of understanding of special relativity even with that frame.

The necessary basic to understand is ...

• Space is elastic
• Gravity is pulling that elasticity
• TRUE Speed is changing (local) elasticity / tension as well
• Matter is connected to space, and is absorbing elastic space
• This is all what relativity is about.
• So when the environment is changing, either due to speed, or due to gravity, - (or due to both factors) the tension in the matter/space connecting is also changing / different.

This is what the next decades of new physic will be about..

 

[halleyscomet]

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 attach 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

But relativistic mass is not a constant when subjected to a change in altitude, within gravitational fields. [9]It is sum ofthe positive and negativerelativistic mass that reflectshow strong matter is connected to space, and thereforethe net result of relativistic mass is also thefactor responsible for themagnitude of kinematic anomalies.

Mass is not altered by altitude or gravitational pull. Gravitational pull is determined by mass. You're using a constant as a variable. It's hard to tell how badly you compound that error because YOU PROVIDE NO EQUATIONS FOR YOUR SUBSEQUENT CLAIMS.

Modelling is very complex and is not presently available.

Well, since you've provided NONE of the equations needed to model your theory, there's no way for anyone else to evaluate that claim, now is there? Try providing the math. I think you'll be surprised how much number crunching modern PCs can do.

For the record, I DID read your "paper." That's how I knew you didn't have the math needed to support any of your claims.

 

[phunk]

How can space be elastic with gravity pulling on it without being curved?

 

[Bjarne]

Now, provide the calculations that this "sophisticated software" will have to run in order to prove you're right.

Give us the calculations needed to calculate "space-tension" for a given object.

Explain, and provide the equations for us to calculate, how the "space-tension" of multiple objects interact.

Please elaborate on how an object with mass in the real world can have irregularities in its orbit that are kinematic.

What exactly do you mean by "kinematic?" The context in which you're using it suggests you may have a meaning in mind other than the one science gives it.

Since Mercury can somehow be subjected to a mass-less orbital peculiarity, why are other planets not similar effected?

If there is a threshold at which a planet actually HAS enough mass for your theory to no longer apply a kinematic adjustment to it's orbit, what IS that theoretical threshold?

How do you calculate it?

Just use the Lorentz transformation, just as a simple factors + / -

SR will involve matter deeper into space, and therefore = resistance
GR is causing the exact opposite effect
Combine this with well-known Newtonian orbit calculation

BWHAHAHA!!!!! Are you seriously suggesting, with all the dross and flotsam on the Internet, somebody at some distant point in the future will reach back to read one badly written paper with nothing to back it up, by a nobody who was otherwise forgotten by history, and miraculously recognize a theory someone ELSE propagated, likely using different terminology?

Well, I suppose some future version of the David Icke forums might have a lunatic that dedicated to attacking some future theory. Enjoy your nominal and transient notoriety on an obscure web forum. It's all you're ever going to get.

It all begins with understanding what you is up against.
And this is my mission comrade.
A whole world of intelligent people are soon ready to calculate, don't worry about this part

 

[Bjarne]

How can space be elastic with gravity pulling on it without being curved?

Let say you have a rubber band, - its 1 meter long and not curved anywhere right ?
Now we cut it in 2 pieces, each ½ meter
I will eat the one piece and you keep the other one
Now stretch your left ½ meter piece to 1 meter.
Still the rubber band is not curved

the same is the case for space .

 

[Bjarne]

Mass is not altered by altitude or gravitational pull.

1. Where is the evidence for that statement ?
2. What makes you believe that potential energy can be NOWHERE to be found ?

 

[halleyscomet]

Let say you have a rubber band, - its 1 meter long and not curved anywhere right ?
Now we cut it in 2 pieces, each ½ meter
I will eat the one piece and you keep the other one
Now stretch your left ½ meter piece to 1 meter.
Still the rubber band is not curved

the same is the case for space .

That doesn't work when you add multiple dimensions. Think about a rubber sheet. You can't stretch one portion without curving another. Your analogy only works if space is so cut up and damaged that there are only straight strips left. Is that what you're claiming about the nature of the universe, that the fabric of reality itself is in tatters? If so, how did things function BEFORE reality was shredded?

 

[halleyscomet]

Just use the Lorentz transformation, just as a simple factors + / -

SR will involve matter deeper into space, and therefore = resistance
GR is causing the exact opposite effect
Combine this with well-known Newtonian orbit calculation

That doesn't answer any of my questions. It's a dodge. I'm not going to do your work for you. You need to write those calculations yourself. You're not a teacher educating students. You're a supplicant trying to present a theory.

A whole world of intelligent people are soon ready to calculate, don't worry about this part

Wow. Did you seriously just dismiss the need for you to provide calculations by hand-waving that job to others?

Hoooo-weeee, you're lazy.

 

[The Man]

The necessary basic to understand is ...

• Space is elastic

How? What are the quantitative elastic properties of space? Heck, I even gave you a link to bulk material elasticity to help you.

• Gravity is pulling that elasticity

How? What are the quantitative forces and relations involved in that "pulling"?

• TRUE Speed is changing (local) elasticity / tension as well

How? What are the quantitative relations between your "TRUE Speed" and your "changing (local) elasticity / tension". What if your "(local) elasticity / tension" isn't "changing"? If that "is" your "TRUE Speed" as you assert then no change would imply no "TRUE Speed".

• Matter is connected to space, and is absorbing elastic space

How? What are the quantitative relations of that 'connection' and 'absorption'?

• This is all what relativity is about.

Not true, relativity makes no such assertions and none of what you have said as well as simply neglected to do is required by relativity in any form.

• So when the environment is changing, either due to speed, or due to gravity, - (or due to both factors) the tension in the matter/space connecting is also changing / different.

How? What are those quantitative relations? Without those relations you can't say if your "tension" changes or not with those variations.

This is what the next decades of new physic will be about..

Well you evidently have a lot of work to do in those decades as you apprently don't even understand just your own asserted "necessary basic". Time to get started actually doing that work.

 

[Bjarne]

Mass is not altered by altitude or gravitational pull. Gravitational pull is determined by mass. You're using a constant as a variable. It's hard to tell how badly you compound that error because YOU PROVIDE NO EQUATIONS FOR YOUR SUBSEQUENT CLAIMS.

Well, since you've provided NONE of the equations needed to model your theory, there's no way for anyone else to evaluate that claim, now is there? Try providing the math. I think you'll be surprised how much number crunching modern PCs can do.

For the record, I DID read your "paper." That's how I knew you didn't have the math needed to support any of your claims.

Comrade, first at all it's a question of understanding new physic.
Energy is always accompanied by mass.

So a stone falling down from heaven will gain mass /energy due to speed, but also lose mass/energy due to lose of potential energy..

You cannot separate energy and mass in these phenomenas.

 

[Bjarne]

That doesn't work when you add multiple dimensions.

Lets keep religion out of the discussion.

 

[Bjarne]

That doesn't answer any of my questions. It's a dodge. I'm not going to do your work for you. You need to write those calculations yourself. You're not a teacher educating students. You're a supplicant trying to present a theory.
.

So I have to quit my work and learn software programming, that hard core brainwashed not will watch anyway.

 

[halleyscomet]

Comrade, first at all it's a question of understanding new physic.
Energy is always accompanied by mass.

So a stone falling down from heaven will gain mass /energy due to speed, but also lose mass/energy due to lose of potential energy..

You cannot separate energy and mass in these phenomenas.

Again, you're dodging, not responding.

The facts remain you misunderstand the nature of mass, give no evidence to support your alternative ideas other than bald assertion, and appear to be disdainful of the idea of actually writing out the equations to evaluate your theories with real data.

Homeopaths and Creationists put more effort into their "science" than you do.

 

[Bjarne]

That doesn't work when you add multiple dimensions. Think about a rubber sheet. You can't stretch one portion without curving another. Your analogy only works if space is so cut up and damaged that there are only straight strips left. Is that what you're claiming about the nature of the universe, that the fabric of reality itself is in tatters? If so, how did things function BEFORE reality was shredded?

Yes the universe is like a elastic soup
Matter can consume some of that elastic soup and clump it
No curvature
So simple

 

[The Man]

Let say you have a rubber band, - its 1 meter long and not curved anywhere right ?
Now we cut it in 2 pieces, each ½ meter
I will eat the one piece and you keep the other one
Now stretch your left ½ meter piece to 1 meter.
Still the rubber band is not curved

the same is the case for space .

Ah I see now you've actually included stretching with your rubber band and assert that it expands as a result. So now your stretched elastic space expands?

Guess what, you didn't assert how to stretch it so it could still be stretched in a way that results in it being curved. Similarly as you can't assert quantitatively how your elastic space stretches you can't assert that such stretching results in no curvature. Time to move past bad anthologies, poor and deficient rubberband examples and start putting the real work into your notions.

 

[Bjarne]

Again, you're dodging, not responding.

The facts remain you misunderstand the nature of mass, give no evidence to support your alternative ideas other than bald assertion, and appear to be disdainful of the idea of actually writing out the equations to evaluate your theories with real data.

Homeopaths and Creationists put more effort into their "science" than you do.

I think you not is aware how serious a collapse of SR is for our paradigm.