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

[halleyscomet]

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.

No, no, that's not what physicists mean when they use the term "energy." You're making up completely different definitions for existing words.

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.

I never said energy was something that could vanish or hide. I provided links to some of the equations for potential energy and you're dismissing this rather fundamental slice of physics. How do you expect to sway physicists when you are openly disdainful and mocking of the very fundamentals of science?

Where did you get your science education?

Did you ever graduate from, well, anywhere?

 

[The Man]

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.

Well, technically it does. An object or systems rest mass (invariant mass) in a center of momentum (co-moving or rest) frame is the total energy of the system (potential and kinetic) in that frame divided by c²
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass

Thing is that bound states represent a negative potential, you have to add energy to free, say, a particle from the system.

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

As a result the electromagnetic binding energy of the constituents of atoms...

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

...results in a mass deficit. The total mass of the atom is less then the sum of the masses of its constituents.

Gravitational potential energy also results in bound states like orbits...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html

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

...and is also a negative potential. The negative aspect of the gravitational potential often trips people up.

So while technically correct, potential energy does contribute to mass. How it contributes depends on the nature of that potential. Chemical and elastic potential energy would tend to be positive while binding energies and potentials (like gravity) would be negative. I'm sure Bjarne has heard or read about the former and sincerely doubt he has any understanding of the latter.

This is why the gravitational field of an object or system is related to its stress energy tensor. Which naturally, as the source of such fields, doesn't include gravitational fields itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress–energy_tensor

Bjarne: you should probably take note of the inclusion of the term "stress" in that tensor. In the diagram to the right on the linked page you will note the T¹², T¹³ and T²³ terms that represent shear stress and the T¹¹, T²² and T³³ terms that represent pressure or normal stress. You have a lot of work to do.

 

[halleyscomet]

Rather elastic space


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


Rubbish
There are no evidence


Religion
No evidence at all


Mass and energy, are in these cases inseparable.

To clarify, you just called the equations that define potential energy, "religion."

To clarify, you just called the equations that define potential energy, "religion."

To clarify, you just called the equations that define potential energy, "religion."

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

I would accuse you of lying, but then you did just refer to the equations that define potential energy as "religion." You may actually be that scientifically illiterate. It looks like you actually do think math is that inconsequential a component of physics, yet you have delusions of swaying actual physicists with your physics flavored word salad.

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.

You have to ignore over 100 years of science to make that claim with a straight face. The Luminiferous aether was only theorized because of a limited understanding of how light functioned. It wasn't discarded because of one experiment. It was discarded because hundreds and then thousands of experiments showed us the theory was not needed to explain how light functions. If you want to reintroduce it, you need to come up with an alternative to current theories about how light itself functions.

Waaaait a second. Have you been reading Hideo Fukutome?

Good lord, you have! You entire theory is cribbed from a mangled failure to understand Hideo Fukutome's "Elastic Ether Theory of Elementary Particles."

Dear lord this is hilarious! This entire thread has been about a mangled "misheard lyrics" style remix of a 1960 theory about the behavior of elementary particles.

Everyone in this thread, please read "Elastic Ether Theory of Elementary Particles" by Hideo Fukutome because I think it may be the ultimate source of Bjarne's "theories."

 

[The Man]

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.

I know I've already asked you this, please show quantitatively how you get units of energy (Newton Meter) from just an "amount of space"?

Heck, even when almost handed to you on a silver platter, elastic stress is stored (potential) energy, you still can't seem to just get out of your own way.

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)..

Really, then by all means please show quantitatively where this "because the tension of space have become too strong" point is. Don't know? Well then you don't know that there is such a point. Again if you can't be bothered to figure out your own notions why should anyone else? Again time to start doing the work and find out what your notions actually indicate rather than just what you would like.

 

[halleyscomet]

I know I've already asked you this, please show quantitatively how you get units of energy (Newton Meter) from just an "amount of space"?



Heck, even when almost handed to you on a silver platter, elastic stress is stored (potential) energy, you still can't seem to just get out of your own way.







Really, then by all means please show quantitatively where this "because the tension of space have become too strong" point is. Don't know? Well then you don't know that there is such a point. Again if you can't be bothered to figure out your own notions why should anyone else? Again time to start doing the work and find out what your notions actually indicate rather than just what you would like.

He'll never provide any equations.

Never.

He's made it clear in no uncertain terms that he considers the math to be unimportant.

The fusion of hubris and laziness he's exhibited with his theory has reached "Trump on Foreign Affairs" levels.

 

[The Man]

He'll never provide any equations.

Never.

He's made it clear in no uncertain terms that he considers the math to be unimportant.

The fusion of hubris and laziness he's exhibited with his theory has reached "Trump on Foreign Affairs" levels.

Yep, it's all just pretense. As long as he can assert just what he likes it doesn't seem to matter what the implications actually are. The truly sad part is (as if that wasn't sad enough), as you assert, even if he was correct in just some nebulous or abstract manor it won't make any difference. Credit will go, justifiably, to anyone who works up a consistent quantified model.

 

[Steve001]

Well, technically it does. An object or systems rest mass (invariant mass) in a center of momentum (co-moving or rest) frame is the total energy of the system (potential and kinetic) in that frame divided by c²
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant_mass

Thing is that bound states represent a negative potential, you have to add energy to free, say, a particle from the system.

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

As a result the electromagnetic binding energy of the constituents of atoms...

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

...results in a mass deficit. The total mass of the atom is less then the sum of the masses of its constituents.

Gravitational potential energy also results in bound states like orbits...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/gpot.html

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

...and is also a negative potential. The negative aspect of the gravitational potential often trips people up.

So while technically correct, potential energy does contribute to mass. How it contributes depends on the nature of that potential. Chemical and elastic potential energy would tend to be positive while binding energies and potentials (like gravity) would be negative. I'm sure Bjarne has heard or read about the former and sincerely doubt he has any understanding of the latter.

This is why the gravitational field of an object or system is related to its stress energy tensor. Which naturally, as the source of such fields, doesn't include gravitational fields itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress–energy_tensor

Bjarne: you should probably take note of the inclusion of the term "stress" in that tensor. In the diagram to the right on the linked page you will note the T¹², T¹³ and T²³ terms that represent shear stress and the T¹¹, T²² and T³³ terms that represent pressure or normal stress. You have a lot of work to do.

You can link all the links till the cows come home and Bj will respond by calling them all superstition as he did once before in some other post.

 

[The Man]

You can link all the links till the cows come home and Bj will respond by calling them all superstition as he did once before in some other post.

That's OK, gotta get them cows home somehow.

 

[Steve001]

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.

I must say I find persons such as yourself intriguing, not for their blatantly wrong ideas, but for their dogged persistent desire to be wrong and seemingly to be absolutely lacking in any comprehension how wrong they are.

 

[Bjarne]

I would accuse you of lying, but then you did just refer to the equations that define potential energy as "religion." You may actually be that scientifically illiterate. It looks like you actually do think math is that inconsequential a component of physics, yet you have delusions of swaying actual physicists with your physics flavored word salad.

No, I am rejecting the insane idea that E (Energy) in some cases can be converted to a expression. Potential energy and true kinetic are always accompanied with M variation (Mass)

You have to ignore over 100 years of science to make that claim with a straight face. The Luminiferous aether was only theorized because of a limited understanding of how light functioned. It wasn't discarded because of one experiment. It was discarded because hundreds and then thousands of experiments showed us the theory was not needed to explain how light functions. If you want to reintroduce it, you need to come up with an alternative to current theories about how light itself functions.

Rubbish
Its only the Michelson-Morley-experiment and a few similar that led to conclusion that the ether does not exist.
Such interpretation was based on that the ether is steady and not following the motion of planet earth, - which is wrong.

Comrade you will see that ISS test will prove to you that there was no reason to reject the ether theory.

 

[Bjarne]

Everyone in this thread, please read "Elastic Ether Theory of Elementary Particles" by Hideo Fukutome because I think it may be the ultimate source of Bjarne's "theories."

You are wrong

 

[Bjarne]

No, no, that's not what physicists mean when they use the term "energy." You're making up completely different definitions for existing words.

But this is the new understanding we will be forced to accept.

I never said energy was something that could vanish or hide.

This is a logic consequence of nowadays science

 

[Bjarne]

I know I've already asked you this, please show quantitatively how you get units of energy (Newton Meter) from just an "amount of space"?

Heck, even when almost handed to you on a silver platter, elastic stress is stored (potential) energy, you still can't seem to just get out of your own way.

Really, then by all means please show quantitatively where this "because the tension of space have become too strong" point is. Don't know? Well then you don't know that there is such a point. Again if you can't be bothered to figure out your own notions why should anyone else? Again time to start doing the work and find out what your notions actually indicate rather than just what you would like.

Well there is a lot more to be done,- Rom was not drunk on one day. I will continue to make that aspect more digestible.

 

[halleyscomet]

But this is the new understanding we will be forced to accept.



This is a logic consequence of nowadays science

Show us the math.

How does your "theory" differ in experimental results from relativity?

What are the mathematical proofs of your theory?

At this point all you've done is try to change out the analogies.

 

[Bjarne]

Show us the math.

How does your "theory" differ in experimental results from relativity?

What are the mathematical proofs of your theory?

At this point all you've done is try to change out the analogies.

This reveals you haven't read the theory...
Now very short....

Special Relativity.
No relativistic effect will take place when moving straight north, - (relative to ecliptic) but the opposite will be the case.

One parameter to measure this is time dilation.
Instead of expected faster time, a clock will instead tick faster.
This is because relativistic transformation is a process, where both matter and space is involved.

Let’s say the Earth’s follows dark flow, at the speed 600 km/s, and you moves opposite on board the ISS, - at 7 km/s .
Now your true speed is only 593km/s, and therefore SR will here instead show the opposite effect, - as you expect according to SR.

You will only achieve the effect predicted by the prevailing theory if you somehow move faster than the Earth, seen from an absolute perspective.

The reason for the effect predicted above is; -

• That matter and elastic space is elastic connected through elastic space.
• When E will increase due to true speed, M will also increase, and matter will be deeper involved in the elastic connection between space and matter.

Opposite if true speed will be reduced, all relativistic effects will also be reduced, which mean SR now give the complete opposite result.

It is due to falling understanding the matter / space connection process that have blinded a whole world to believe that the theory of relativity was infallibly.

All you need is the math based on the Lorentz Equation, - read the paper, - all you need is in this case simple kindergarten math, and its all in the paper.

The keyword for SR is how the total energy of a moving object is contributing to local strengthen the matter / space connection, or if you prefer the local “tension of space”, near and inside the object.

General Relativity.
In general Relativity it is different.
Now it is only about how space and matter interact with each other, under different circumstances.

In this case it is not the object itself that due to its own total energy variation is causing any relativistic change, but only the environment that differs depending on how deep inside a field of gravity an orbiting object get..

We already know that the influence of GR and SR are opposites..
The theoretical aspect is; - the more matter “compete” to pull elastic space, - the more difficult it is for a particle to be “involved” is the elastic nature of pace, and therefore less M and less E.

This mean the deeper inside a gravitational field an object moves, the more you must expect speed increment anomalies.

Regardless whether you like the last interpretation, its not changing the fact that GR and SR are (normally) opposites, and again you can use the Lorentz equation to calculate the GR-influences.

The best possible way to scientific test that part of the theory is; - flyby manure.
It’s very simple, - the deeper you inside a gravitational field a space probes get, - the more you shall expect speed increment anomalies.

I think that if the circumstance’s for the Galileo 5 & 6 test is OK, - and the test probably done, - we will also very soon see speed increment anomalies connected with these Space probes, which will be enough to explain any "perihelion precisions anomalies of these space probes" - and therefore the hypothetical curved space is dead..

So Galileo 5 & 6 test could easy be the starting gun to bring down , let me say 50% of GR. – Notice only half of GR is sick..

It is the exact same principle / law of nature responsible for the perihelion anomaly of mercury. This anomaly is also caused due to different matter / space connection, when approaching the Sun.

Which mean, you do no longer need Einstein’s theory, to explain the cause of gravity.

 

[The Man]

No, I am rejecting the insane idea that E (Energy) in some cases can be converted to a expression. Potential energy and true kinetic are always accompanied with M variation (Mass)

Wait seriously? First you bemoan the 'insanity' of energy "converted to a expression". Then you assert "Potential energy and true kinetic are always" converted to the expression "M" "(Mass)". Again please get back to us when you can at least agree with just yourself. Again if you don't like something then don't do it yourself. If you oppose converting energy to some other expression then don't insist on converting energy to some other expression like, well, mass.

Rubbish
Its only the Michelson-Morley-experiment and a few similar that led to conclusion that the ether does not exist.
Such interpretation was based on that the ether is steady and not following the motion of planet earth, - which is wrong.

Comrade you will see that ISS test will prove to you that there was no reason to reject the ether theory.

Actually it was Maxwell's equations that showed EM radiation was a transverse as opposed to a longitudinal wave. It didn't need any aether just the electromagnetic field. "the Michelson-Morley-experiment" was just another nail in a coffin already well built.

 

[halleyscomet]

All you need is the math based on the Lorentz Equation, - read the paper, - all you need is in this case simple kindergarten math, and its all in the paper.

You just referred to algebra as "kindergarten math." This is the same math you earlier claimed you'd need to get a computer science degree to do.

You also appear to think the paragraph above is sufficient to meet the need for mathematical equations sufficient to overthrow relativity.

I love how when asked to provide the equations yourself they're too difficult for modern technology, but when you're asking someone else to do your work for you this incredibly difficult math transmutes through alchemical means into "kindergarten math."

So, what inputs should I feed into the Lorentz Equation and what outputs should I be getting? You seem to think that name dropping equations is enough to support your theory. It's not. You have to actually show your work, compare and contrast, provide concrete experiments that could demonstrate the accuracy of your theory.

You keep asking me to do the work you should have already done to support your theory. If I actually sit down and do that, I'm gonna publish my own damn paper with the actual equations. Since you've done none of the actual work to support your theory your contribution at this point has been a vague idea. I doubt it would even be worth mentioning you in my paper.

 

[The Man]

Well there is a lot more to be done,- Rom was not drunk on one day. I will continue to make that aspect more digestible.

Actually, given the quality of water and thus the prevalence of wine, even drunk from lead cups, Rome was probably drunk as well as suffering lead poisoning on most days, even while being built.

Here's a tip instead of working to try and make your apparently deliberate laziness "more digestible" just put that effort into actually doing the work.

 

[halleyscomet]

But this is the new understanding we will be forced to accept.



This is a logic consequence of nowadays science

You need to do more work than name dropping a few equations you don't understand on a skeptics website to convince anyone of anything.

 

[MRC_Hans]

No, I am rejecting the insane idea that E (Energy) in some cases can be converted to a expression.

Makes no sense. Where did you get that idea?

Potential energy and true kinetic are always accompanied with M variation (Mass)

According to Special Relativity yes.

Its only the Michelson-Morley-experiment and a few similar that led to conclusion that the ether does not exist.

You are wrong. That experiment has been made constantly 24/7 for the last seven decades. A considerable portion of modern technology depends on it, including, but certainly not limited to, radar, electronic navigation (not only GPS, but the old Decca, Loran, and Omega systems).

Such interpretation was based on that the ether is steady and not following the motion of planet earth, - which is wrong.

And pray tell, why would the ether follow exactly Earth?

Comrade you will see that ISS test will prove to you that there was no reason to reject the ether theory.

Bjarne, you have predicted such things for at least 8 years now. Always, you are soon to be vindicated. Only, it never happens.

Hans