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

[Bjarne]

If I were to eat at McD, I would actually loose weight since I hate the stuff they sell. ..Nevermind...

As somebody already explained, doing work to climb stairs is going to make you loose weight. The carbohydrates you burn to get the energy will turn into CO₂ and water. You will exhale the CO₂ and sweat and evaporate the water.

Your always wacky practical examples aside, what if we take a 1 kg weight and hoist or carry it to the top floor of a large building? Will it gain weight?

No it will not gain weight. (Weight is the the strength with which gravity pulls at an object in its actual position.) Since it is now a little farther from the Earth's center of gravity, it will actually weigh a little less. A good precision scale will be able to measure that.

Will it gain mass, then? (Mass is independent of the current gravity field.) No it will not gain mass. How about the potential energy, then? Well, potential energy resides in the system. When it is positional energy, as in this case, the system includes two objects, with a gravity field between them. The objects are the 1 kg weight, and Earth. Together, they will have gained a little bit of mass, but there will be no way you can see or measure any effect on the weight.

Read and understand, Bjarne, and you will actually be a little wiser.

Hans

This is a total mishmash of weight and mass. Weight is not a subject, so keep that out.
Even though there is almost always is a certain energy "lose" to bring a body to higher position, - at least some of the energy used in such a process, is simply converted to what you call potential energy, and this and only this is the point.
The expression; - “Position energy" is only an almost empty expression, at least seen from a mathematical point of view, - which in fact violate the equation E = Mc^2, so long your are not willing to admit that the added energy must be somewhere, in the real world..

 

[dasmiller]

Test space probe flying North relative to ecliptic, is perfect to detect unexpected SR anomalies.
I am afraid that only flyby test probes are able to show why GR is the wrong theory for gravity, at least these are the best.

GPS spacecraft fly at up to 78 degrees from the ecliptic. Is that not north enough?

 

[MRC_Hans]

This is a total mishmash of weight and mass. Weight is not a subject, so keep that out.

No, it is not any mishmash. You did, for some reason, include something about overeating and gaining weight, for clarity I included something about weight. But fine, it seems you do understand the difference, so I suggest you read my post again (you are welcome to skip the part about weight), and try to understand it.

Even though there is almost always is a certaiy energy "lose" to bring a body to higher position, - at least some of the energy used in such a process, is simply converted to what you call potential energy, and this and only this is the point.

Yes, the body gains potential energy.

The expression; - “Position energy" is only an almost empty expression, at least seen from a mathematical point of view,

No, it is a perfectly correct expression, although in this case 'potitional energy' is even more precise.

- which in fact violate the equation E = Mc^2, so long your are not willing to admit that the added energy must be somewhere, in the real world..

Who is not willing to admit what? READ my post Bjarne. Where do I say the extra mass is?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

GPS spacecraft fly at up to 78 degrees from the ecliptic. Is that not north enough?

If not, the ISS is not likely to find anything.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

In a somewhat circumspect way, you trying to describe exactly what GR says. However, there are some problems with your example:
A and B cannot observe the same photon. You can only observe a photon by converting it to some other form of energy. So, at best, A and B are observing two different photons that were emitted from the same place, at the same time.

A and B can observe the same photon, B can reflect it further to A, - just a insignificant split-second later (which can be calculated) the photon will reach A in the cellar. You have no point at all there, also not if there were 2 parallel photons moving side by side all the way.

However, those two photons did not follow the same path. On reached B, the other reached A, deeper in the gravity well. The difference in time dilation between the two will exactly outweigh the different in the clocks.

Again you are really trying escaping from a serious dilemma, by trying to make a pretty insignificant circumstance to a point.

It is indeed true that A's clock and B's clock will not run to the exact same time, but it would take centuries for the difference to be measurable.

Also this is not a point at all, the photons could have been travelling almost 14 billion years, and since this is a thought experiment atomic clock to measure the time it took could have existed all the time too.
We can even extend the experiment to happen in the future, and therefore to a travel time at 1000 billion years, or 1.000.000.000 billion years.

In the end of the day the fact is crystal clear..
A simple thought experiment is enough to collapse the prevailing interpretation of what GR really is about.

GR is a modification to Newtonian math. .

True, but if length contraction happens because the ruler extend, GR is in deep trouble and must be modified. So simple is that.
What only seems to be an insignificant modification of GR will have huge consequences..... This is all it takes comrade Hans....

There is no need to invent a new one, because GR explains it perfectly

It’s not enough to “explain something perfectly” , if a theory begin to fail, - which in fact is the case based on serveral flyby anomalies, - and a slight modification of the theory (GR) - (that have dramatically consequences) seems to be a better solution , - you have to think twice.

 

[The Man]

"No expected relativistic effect will take place.."

Length contraction, time dilation and a limit on speed as momentum increases are "expected relativistic effect" at relativistic speeds.

ETA: Oh and "expected" wasn't part of your original assertion.

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

Not that it makes much difference either way and dishonesty still will not help you.

How did you come to such conclusion ?

That would be the result of no limit on speed as momentum increases. If you meant 'yes there is a limit on speed as momentum increases' "from a absolute point of view" you should have made an effort to be clear about that. However, I would then have simply asked how does that limit change from any other "point of view"?

In this case a particle is connected to a magnetic field; - it’s a very different kind of phenomena that can't be compared.

Technically it is an electrical field that accelerates the particle to that speed in that case. However, by all means please show exactly and quantitatively why how a particle gets to some speed make a difference to what speed it does have.

For your own edification special relativity deals explicitly and exclusively with inertial (non-accelerating) reference frames (it doesn't matter how it got to that speed).

 

[Rincewind]

If you want the real answer it's because he doesn't realize they have. Go back and take a look, for example, at his argument in defense of an elastic ether. He is woefully ignorant of the massive body of technology that would not function if his theories, such as they are, had legs. He seems to sincerely believe there's a single experiment that upset the apple cart.

This also is why he thinks one experiment can upset relativity. He doesn't understand how science functions in the real world and how it's a process of continual refinement. He honestly does not realize his lazy, piss-poor theorizing with a non-existent mathematical backbone is never going to cause a paradigm shift.

He has a Hollywood image of science.

[qimg]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science_montage.png[/qimg]

Thanks - I'm not a scientist, so appreciate that some people here are.

Love the cartoons!

Oh - and I did notice that he carefully answered a question I hadn't asked!

 

[halleyscomet]

It’s not enough to “explain something perfectly” , if a theory begin to fail, - which in fact is the case based on serveral flyby anomalies, - and a slight modification of the theory (GR) - (that have dramatically consequences) seems to be a better solution , - you have to think twice.

We can't even think "once" about your theory until you provide us the math to support it.

If you dedicated a 10th of the energy you put into this thread to instead working out the equations to support your theory you might actually get a few physicists to give you the time of day. You could at least get a fair hearing instead of being justifiably dismissed as a crank.

Your laziness in developing your own theory makes a fascinating ménage when combined with the defeatism you demonstrate whenever anyone challenges you to do the work and the raw egotism you exhibit that your fractionally expressed theory will gain traction. It's almost as if you don't want to be proven right by the scientific community at large.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: The lie that your "paper" predicts anything about any ISS experiment

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

That is a lie, Bjarne. You have an invalid PDF on a internet "journal" which does not do any analysis of any experiments on the ISS.
22 August 2016 Bjarne: The lie that your "paper" predicts anything about any ISS experiment. It does not even mention any ISS experiment by name !
What you do is do a dumb calculation with the insanity that some experiment in the ISS will measure 50% of the SR time dilation for imaginary "aligned with the dark flow" orbits. Ditto for the Galileo 5 & 6 satellites.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: The delusion that the Pioneer Anomaly was "swept under the carpet"

Even the Pioneer Anomaly was "successfully” swept under the carpet, ...

22 August 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that the Pioneer Anomaly was "swept under the carpet" when you know that it has been researched and explained.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: The delusion that the Allais Effect was "swept under the carpet"

... and so they did with the Allais Effect as well.

22 August 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that the Allais Effect was "swept under the carpet" when you know that it was researched and found to be dubious.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: A delusion that his "theory" predicts Mercury's perihelion anomaly

The theory also shows what the real cause of Mercury's perihelion anomaly really is. It require fairly sophisticated software.

22 August 2016 Bjarne: A delusion that his "theory" predicts Mercury's perihelion anomaly when he has not predicted anything successfully or produced this imaginary "fairly sophisticated software"!

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: Delusional tables about Mercury, Venus and Earth are not perihelion anomalies

This chapter is about Mercury...

That is a partial lie, Bjarne. That chapter has an idiotic table about Mercury which has nothing to do with Mercury's perihelion anomaly. There is a delusional "(RR) SR factor" column. There is a probably delusional, unexplained "GR Factor" column. Ditto for the Venus and Earth tables.
22 August 2016 Bjarne: Delusional tables about Mercury, Venus and Earth are not perihelion anomalies.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: Energy is NOT always accompanied by mass (photons!)

Energy is always accompanied by mass.

This is an ignorant statement, Bjarne - photons have energy and have no mass.
22 August 2016 Bjarne: Energy is not always accompanied by mass (photons!).

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: A bad example showing that your "elastic" space cannot produce gravity

Let say you have a rubber band, - its 1 meter long and not curved anywhere right ?
...the same is the case for space .

The idiocy of an example showing that your "elastic" space cannot produce gravity ! Draw a line on your rubber band. Note that when you stretched the band the line remained straight. But gravity needs curved paths !
22 August 2016 Bjarne: A bad example showing that your "elastic" space cannot produce gravity!

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: The delusion that the real world is one dimensional like a rubber band

Lets keep religion out of the discussion.

22 August 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that the real world is one dimensional like a rubber band !
The real world has 3 space dimensions in GR, SR and even classical physics.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: A fantasy about the Michelson–Morley experiment being misinterpreted

The elastic ether was common knowledge in the late 1800

The luminiferous aether was not elastic. It was a fluid that was millions of times more rigid than steel !
22 August 2016 Bjarne: Ignorance about the luminiferous aether being elastic.

22 August 2016 Bjarne: A fantasy about the Michelson–Morley experiment being misinterpreted.
The Michelson–Morley experiment was designed to detect the movement of the Earth through a luminiferous aether. It did not detect any such movement. Current measurements rule out a luminiferous aether to 10^-17 parts of c! That is the only interpretation that is possible.

22 August 2016 Bjarne: A lie about his "elastic ether" fantasy not being his idea - he has not cited any other sources for it.
The luminiferous aether is not his "elastic ether" or a source for gravity.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: Repeating invalid delusions does not make them valid science

Now very short.....

Even shorter:
22 August 2016 Bjarne: Repeating invalid and ignorant delusions does not make them valid science!

• SR has been tested in thousands of experiments - some of which should involve your "moving straight north".
  For example think abut the LHC which has particles moving in a circle at 0.999999990 c !
• Delusions about what dark flow is.
• Your delusion of "true speed" pops up again.

 

[Reality Check]

The RR fantasy appearing on 15 October 2009 here, continued ignorance of high school level science and digging a pit of fantasies from Bjarne (101 items of ignorance, fantasy and delusion in this thread alone!).
A weekend of repeated fantasies and ignorance from Bjarne.

1. 22 August 2016 Bjarne: The lie that your "paper" predicts anything about any ISS experiment. It does not even mention any ISS experiment by name!
2. 22 August 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that the Pioneer Anomaly was "swept under the carpet" when you know that it has been researched and explained.
3. 22 August 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that the Allais Effect was "swept under the carpet" when you know that it was researched and found to be dubious.
4. 22 August 2016 Bjarne: A delusion that his "theory" predicts Mercury's perihelion anomaly when he has not predicted anything successfully or produced this imaginary "fairly sophisticated software"!
5. 22 August 2016 Bjarne: Delusional tables about Mercury, Venus and Earth are not perihelion anomalies.
6. 22 August 2016 Bjarne: Energy is not always accompanied by mass (photons!).
7. 22 August 2016 Bjarne: A bad example showing that your "elastic" space cannot produce gravity!
8. 22 August 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that the real world is one dimensional like a rubber band !
9. 22 August 2016 Bjarne: Ignorance about the luminiferous aether being elastic.
10. 22 August 2016 Bjarne: A fantasy about the Michelson–Morley experiment being misinterpreted.
11. 22 August 2016 Bjarne: A lie about his "elastic ether" fantasy not being his idea - he has not cited any other sources for it.
12. 22 August 2016 Bjarne: Repeating invalid and ignorant delusions does not make them valid science!

 

[MRC_Hans]

A and B can observe the same photon, B can reflect it further to A, - just a insignificant split-second later (which can be calculated) the photon will reach A in the cellar. You have no point at all there, also not if there were 2 parallel photons moving side by side all the way.

Sorry, Bjarne, but it is your point that is missing. If B reflects the photon to A, it is possible to calculate when it passed B, but what so we need the photon for, then? All we do is compare A's and B's clocks, and we already know they do not keep the same time.

What you are really trying to illustrate is a slow-mo version of the old "twin paradox", but that really pertains to SR, not GR.

Since we (mostly) measure astronomical distances in light-years, then yes, as A and B don't have the same time, their light-years are going to be slightly different: A is in fact seeing the universe through the gravitational lens, and his image will be slightly more distorted than B's.

Again you are really trying escaping from a serious dilemma, by trying to make a pretty insignificant circumstance to a point.

Nope, I'm pointing out that this is old hat, and long since accounted for. You just don't understand it.

Also this is not a point at all, the photons could have been travelling almost 14 billion years, and since this is a thought experiment atomic clock to measure the time it took could have existed all the time too.
We can even extend the experiment to happen in the future, and therefore to a travel time at 1000 billion years, or 1.000.000.000 billion years.

And all we would do would still just be comparing clocks.

In the end of the day the fact is crystal clear..
A simple thought experiment is enough to collapse the prevailing interpretation of what GR really is about.

What is crystal clear is that you don't understand what GR is about.

True, but if length contraction happens because the ruler extend, GR is in deep trouble and must be modified. So simple is that.

What ruler? Are we talking about your old steel ruler from the workshop? That won't change, but the light-year can.

In short, Bjarne, before you try to challenge General Relativity, you need to understand it. It is very clear that currently, you don't.

I suggest you start here: http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-general-relativity-theory-gravity-as-geo.html

Better read this also (just in case): http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/einsteins-special-relativity.html

This has lots of nice pictures, I know you like that: http://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html

Feel free to ask questions, once you have read that. I'm sure people here will try their best to answer them.

Hans