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

[halleyscomet]

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

You don't need to be a computer programmer to write the equations. To be blunt, if you don't have the chops to write out the equations then you don't have the cops to evaluate your theory versus relativity.

You love making excuses for your failure to provide evidence. Are you afraid an attempt to write out the equations would prove your ideas to be wrong?

Why are you so terrified of fleshing out your theories enough for them to be tested?

 

[Bjarne]

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.

The soup in you pot can stretch towards the elastic soup consuming clumps, - but curvature ? - no.

 

[The Man]

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

Why would you have to "learn software programming" to write or at least try to write some equations? I do agree though, you shouldn't quit your day job.

 

[Bjarne]

You don't need to be a computer programmer to write the equations. To be blunt, if you don't have the chops to write out the equations then you don't have the cops to evaluate your theory versus relativity.

You love making excuses for your failure to provide evidence. Are you afraid an attempt to write out the equations would prove your ideas to be wrong?

Why are you so terrified of fleshing out your theories enough for them to be tested?

No no my freind
Experience tells me that people loves to criticize something they have not read.

Even if I used 17 years and did 17052323632 calculations, that would change the fact that you cannot force a cow to drink.

ISS test, and the following SR collapse is the only concrete bunker blasting sledgehammer that is powerful enough

 

[halleyscomet]

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

So you assert that reality is in tatters as a result of matter.

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

Oh, I think I understand quite well how serious the collapse of special relativity would be. That's why I'm so flummoxed by your incredibly lazy refusal to provide any equations for evaluating your theories.

Lets keep religion out of the discussion.

Dude, I wan't talking about parallel universes, I was talking about width, height and depth.

1. Where is the evidence for that statement ?

A remedial understanding of physics is enough to prove that mass is not altered by altitude or gravitational pull.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/gravitational-force-definition-equation-examples.html

1. What makes you believe that potential energy can be NOWHERE to be found ?

Potential energy is not part of an object's mass. An object's mass is used as part of the calculation to determine an object's potential energy. Here are some more resources:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/energy/u5l1b.cfm

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

I'm starting to see why you refuse to provide any equations. You sling around words not realizing there are real equations behind them. Potential energy is not a vague, nebulous concept you can fudge with. It's a value derived from equations for which there are real-world inputs.

 

[phunk]

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 .

Space isn't one dimensional. Lets make it a rubber sheet. Draw a grid on it. Now grab any point and pinch it to pull some of it inward. Those lines all still straight?

 

[halleyscomet]

No no my freind
Experience tells me that people loves to criticize something they have not read.

Even if I used 17 years and did 17052323632 calculations, that would change the fact that you cannot force a cow to drink.

ISS test, and the following SR collapse is the only concrete bunker blasting sledgehammer that is powerful enough

Without the equations, you don't HAVE a theory, just unsupported speculation.

Without the equations, there's no way for the ISS test you have so much faith in to support your theory in any way.

The equations are the MECHANISM by which your theory would be recognized as accurate if indeed it were.

Without the equations you aren't leading a cow to water that it will not drink, your telling a cow there's water somewhere, but refusing to say WHERE because you are convinced it won't drink.

 

[The Man]

The soup in you pot can stretch towards the elastic soup consuming clumps, - but curvature ? - no.

If your soup is clumping and stretching you may need a better cook. However, to show that your elastic space doesn't curve you actually have to work out the quantitative properties and show they result in no curvature. You apparently would like your elastic space not to curve just as you apparently like clumpy stretched soup. Even evidently would like others to actually do the work for your notions. Unfortunately, we don't always get what we like. Time to put down the clumpy stretched soup and get to work.

I note you didn't answer that if your stretched rubber band is now expanding is your stretched space also expanding? Oh and before you go all soup on me again, put some pepper in your soup (like the marks I said to put on your rubber band) and tell us what happens to the distances between the pepper specks as your soup does "stretch". Again poor, deficient and even food analogies won't help you. Actually doing some work might.

 

[halleyscomet]

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

Gravitational Potential energy is Mass * gravity * height. Altitude and height are synonymous in this context.

Notice that there are no equations for recalculating mass when gravity or height changes. That's because mass, by definition, is not dependent upon gravity. The weight of an object changes under different gravity, but the mass remains unchanged. You weigh less on the Moon than on the Earth, but your mass, the raw material of which you are made, remains unchanged.

This is why your theory is already dead in the water. You fail to understand or even care about the math behind the terms you're trying to redefine.

 

[halleyscomet]

If your soup is clumping and stretching you may need a better cook. However, to show that your elastic space doesn't curve you actually have to work out the quantitative properties and show they result in no curvature. You apparently would like your elastic space not to curve just as you apparently like clumpy stretched soup. Even evidently would like others to actually do the work for your notions. Unfortunately, we don't always get what we like. Time to put down the clumpy stretched soup and get to work.

I note you didn't answer that if your stretched rubber band is now expanding is your stretched space also expanding? Oh and before you go all soup on me again, put some pepper in your soup (like the marks I said to put on your rubber band) and tell us what happens to the distances between the pepper specks as your soup does "stretch". Again poor, deficient and even food analogies won't help you. Actually doing some work might.

I want to see the equations for this "clumpy soup" universe as opposed to a relativistic space-time. Without some equations to demonstrate, and thus test, how the theory changes anything, all we really have is someone choosing a different, and somewhat nauseating, analogy to describe space-time. What predictions can we make from the "clumpy soup" model? How do we test them? How do those predicted results differ from what a relativistic universe would produce?

If the math works out the same anyway, the difference between elastic space-time and clumpy soup is one of analogy choice, not science.

 

[The Man]

Potential energy is not part of an object's mass. An object's mass is used as part of the calculation to determine an object's potential energy. Here are some more resources:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/energy/u5l1b.cfm

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

I'm starting to see why you refuse to provide any equations. You sling around words not realizing there are real equations behind them. Potential energy is not a vague, nebulous concept you can fudge with. It's a value derived from equations for which there are real-world inputs.

Funny thing is that Bjarne doesn't seem to understand that the stress resulting from stretching or compression, in the elastic range, is potential energy. He's got a whole host of ways to explore his notions quantitatively but seemingly can't be bothered to even try any of them.

 

[The Man]

I want to see the equations for this "clumpy soup" universe as opposed to a relativistic space-time. Without some equations to demonstrate, and thus test, how the theory changes anything, all we really have is someone choosing a different, and somewhat nauseating, analogy to describe space-time. What predictions can we make from the "clumpy soup" model? How do we test them? How do those predicted results differ from what a relativistic universe would produce?

If the math works out the same anyway, the difference between elastic space-time and clumpy soup is one of analogy choice, not science.

I'd be happy to see just the effort. The thing is, and we've seen it on this forum before, that people who only 'understand' science by analogy tend to think that's how it actually gets done. However, even the analogies don't work for Bjarne, he wants his space to stretch but not expand. Unfortunately just the analogies show that when you stretch something points of reference on it (distances) get further apart (expand). There doesn't seem to be any effort in any of it on his part.

 

[halleyscomet]

Funny thing is that Bjarne doesn't seem to understand that the stress resulting from stretching or compression, in the elastic range, is potential energy. He's got a whole host of ways to explore his notions quantitatively but seemingly can't be bothered to even try any of them.

Hell, I gave him a link that includes a section on calculating elastic Potential energy!

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/energy/u5l1b.cfm

I wonder if his clumpy soup space-time follows Hook's law and has an equilibrium state...

Based upon what I've read in this thread, I think Bjarn's lack of equations and quantitative exploration is because he really doesn't HAVE an understanding beyond what's in his paper. The guy claims that the equations are too complicated to calculate and then lobs a name-call to the Lorentz transformation as a means of calculating it. He then adds uselessly vague "directions" on how to use the Lorentz transformation to prove part of his theory.

If we take Bjarn at his word, he appears to think the Lorentz transformation "Modelling is very complex and is not presently available." Now, I'll admit, the math is damn intimidating to a layperson, but anyone trying to take on Einstein and Relativity who thinks the technology to crunch it is "not presently available" is not a person who is going to fare well in the battle.

Bjarn vs Einstein is the Bambi vs Godzilla of the physics world, only the "Bambi" in this battle is afraid of math and openly mocks anyone who thinks he's going to lose.

 

[halleyscomet]

I'd be happy to see just the effort. The thing is, and we've seen it on this forum before, that people who only 'understand' science by analogy tend to think that's how it actually gets done. However, even the analogies don't work for Bjarne, he wants his space to stretch but not expand. Unfortunately just the analogies show that when you stretch something points of reference on it (distances) get further apart (expand). There doesn't seem to be any effort in any of it on his part.

You've hit the nail on the head there. Bjarne has confused the analogies with the science and is hopelessly muddled as a result. He tried to claim that an object's potential energy changes its mass. He can't tell the difference between weight and mass, yet has the delusion he can take down Einstein with a "theory" that boils down to using a different set of analogies to describe a specific frame of reference within relativity.

 

[Bjarne]

So you assert that reality is in tatters as a result of matter.

Rather elastic space

Oh, I think I understand quite well how serious the collapse of special relativity would be. That's why I'm so flummoxed by your incredibly lazy refusal to provide any equations for evaluating your theories.

All you need is in the paper, nothing more important need to be added

A remedial understanding of physics is enough to prove that mass is not altered by altitude or gravitational pull.
http://study.com/academy/lesson/gravitational-force-definition-equation-examples.html

Rubbish
There are no evidence

Potential energy is not part of an object's mass.
An object's mass is used as part of the calculation to determine an object's potential energy. Here are some more resources:

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/energy/u5l1b.cfm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy

Religion
No evidence at all

I'm starting to see why you refuse to provide any equations. You sling around words not realizing there are real equations behind them. Potential energy is not a vague, nebulous concept you can fudge with. It's a value derived from equations for which there are real-world inputs.

Mass and energy, are in these cases inseparable.

 

[Bjarne]

I want to see the equations for this "clumpy soup" universe as opposed to a relativistic space-time. Without some equations to demonstrate, and thus test, how the theory changes anything, all we really have is someone choosing a different, and somewhat nauseating, analogy to describe space-time. What predictions can we make from the "clumpy soup" model? How do we test them? How do those predicted results differ from what a relativistic universe would produce?

If the math works out the same anyway, the difference between elastic space-time and clumpy soup is one of analogy choice, not science.

The elastic ether was common knowledge in the late 1800
Only one single misinterpreted experiment (Michelson–Morley experiment) was the reason that a much better understanding of the nature of space was rejected. – So its even not my idea. I am only re introducing it.

 

[Bjarne]

Without the equations, you don't HAVE a theory, just unsupported speculation.

Without the equations, there's no way for the ISS test you have so much faith in to support your theory in any way.

The equations are the MECHANISM by which your theory would be recognized as accurate if indeed it were.

Without the equations you aren't leading a cow to water that it will not drink, your telling a cow there's water somewhere, but refusing to say WHERE because you are convinced it won't drink.

All the equations you need is already there, the fact that you cant / want to, - understand this is a different kind of problem.

 

[BStrong]

The elastic ether was common knowledge in the late 1800

Only one single misinterpreted experiment (Michelson–Morley experiment) was the reason that a much better understanding of the nature of space was rejected. – So its even not my idea. I am only re introducing it.

In English: I have no idea wtf I'm talking about but won't let it stop me.

Until you can cite the guzinta's you are wasting bandwith.

 

[Bjarne]

Funny thing is that Bjarne doesn't seem to understand that the stress resulting from stretching or compression, in the elastic range, is potential energy. He's got a whole host of ways to explore his notions quantitatively but seemingly can't be bothered to even try any of them.

I think you turned this a little on the head. Energy is the "amount of space" that a certain amount of matter,- under different circumstances, - is able to pull.

To be extreme , if gravity is extreme, due to a big Crunch, - matter can come to a point where it cannot pull space anymore, - because the tension of space have become too strong, - and the result is ... Big Bang (everywhere)..

 

[Bjarne]

Gravitational Potential energy is Mass * gravity * height. Altitude and height are synonymous in this context.

Notice that there are no equations for recalculating mass when gravity or height changes. That's because mass, by definition, is not dependent upon gravity. The weight of an object changes under different gravity, but the mass remains unchanged. You weigh less on the Moon than on the Earth, but your mass, the raw material of which you are made, remains unchanged.

This is why your theory is already dead in the water. You fail to understand or even care about the math behind the terms you're trying to redefine.

E and M is not only equivalent but are also (under the circumstances we discussing) - inseparable.

Energy cannot vanish or hide as "potential" energy.
You must always be able to point to where E exactly is, - not bla bla bla, but point to where it is physical.