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

[Bjarne]

Great, then show us that math.

Its simple kindergarten math that speed multiplied with time = distance.

This must apply for both A and B...

It is TOTAL crap to believe that the same photon (from the experiment) can have followed two different paths, all attempt to explain such simple thought experiments fails , (based on the prevailing theory) - everyone honest to them self can see rationel thinking screams to heaven for help.
Distance to a star cannot be schizophrenia..

 

[The Man]

Boiled down to the content of a nut shell you cannot account for the fact that A and B cannot agree about the distance to the star (that in the thought experiment) once emitted a photon (or two) hitting A and B.

Actually that observers may not agree about the coordinate location of events, including just the spatial coordinates is well accounted for in just special relativity. Heck, even just Galilean relativity does that. Remember the bouncing a ball on a train example before? In the on the train frame the ball has no forward displacement yet in the station frame the ball travels forward with the train on each bounce. In some other frame the ball can have some quite complex displacement along that axis. Your argument again just seem to be that you don't understand relativity even in the most basic form.

 

[The Man]

Its simple kindergarten math that speed multiplied with time = distance.

Great, then do the math and show it.

This must apply for both A and B...

It is TOTAL crap to believe that the same photon (from the experiment) can have followed to different paths, or other loads of illogical rubbish.

As well as chicken logic that distance to star cannot be skizofrene..

No rubbish, from source to A is a different path than from source to B and even different than from source to A then to B.

Again just in Galilean relativity the ball follows different paths based on the coordinate frame selected. Your problem seems not to be with SR or GR but just with basic relativity even where absolute time and space are axioms.

 

[Bjarne]

Great, then do the math and show it.



No rubbish, from source to A is a different path than from source to B and even different than from source to A then to B.

Again just in Galilean relativity the ball follows different paths based on the coordinate frame selected. Your problem seems not to be with SR or GR but just with basic relativity even where absolute time and space are axioms.

How can one and the same photon travels a different path from a distance star 14 billion LY way , - and until it hits the earth ?

Different observers (affected by different influence of gravity from earth) must agree that the distance the photon has travelled only seems to be different, but logic tells us this cannot be true.

So the point is, - it is NOT the distance that change, - BUT the way different observers measure that distance.. which mean rulers must be relativistic variants.

 

[halleyscomet]

I have shown you the path out of total darkness, and also which evidence you will see, - step by step, - as well as where to look for evidence in the furture .



The universe is LOGIC, and everyone’s grandmother can understand it.

You've shown us jack squat. You've spent years making pompous proclamations while refusing to do the work to back them up. Why bother? Why are you so determined to engage in online wankery instead of crunching the numbers to provide a testable hypothesis to support your theory?

Is it because, deep down, you know you're wrong and you're afraid that actually doing the math will prove it?

 

[halleyscomet]

Here is the answer to how it was possible to brainwash a whole world.

One day you will understand a hell lot of innocent student pretend they understand something what really is full of contradictory illogical nonsense - just because if not they dont, - they will be considered as outsiders and even stupid. Everyone honest to one self, will know this is true

Just take a look at Hans latest answer, there are no logic in any of these post, just illogical bla bla bla lensing, and more bla bla - different path - bal bla bla -- that make no sence at all.

Intolerant mass hypnotic brainwash is a dangerous thing and a disgrace of the human race

More excuses. How predictable, yet still pathetic.

Show us the math. Cut the onanism and run the numbers. Your mouth keeps writing checks your brain won't cash.

If you actually want to prove something, do the math. If you just want to jaw and whine, don't do the math. You'll prove beyond a shadow of a doubt which is your real agenda if you do the math.

 

[halleyscomet]

Its human to be lazy
Also animals are lazy
(and most of all socialist)

Laziness is not an attribute of successful people. Here, you are bragging about your laziness. I think we can all see why you'll never be successful with your, "theory."

 

[halleyscomet]

How can one and the same photon travels a different path from a distance star 14 billion LY way , - and until it hits the earth ?

Different observers (affected by different influence of gravity from earth) must agree that the distance the photon has travelled only seems to be different, but logic tells us this cannot be true.

So the point is, - it is NOT the distance that change, - BUT the way different observers measure that distance.. which mean rulers must be relativistic variants.

Mathematically. What's the difference?

What equations are changed by your theory?

What results can we expect?

Without math to demonstrate a difference, all you're doing is changing out the analogy. Nobody cares if you prefer a different analogy, especially if your analogy doesn't actually change any of the equations.

 

[halleyscomet]

Its simple kindergarten math that speed multiplied with time = distance.

This must apply for both A and B...

It is TOTAL crap to believe that the same photon (from the experiment) can have followed two different paths, all attempt to explain such simple thought experiments fails , (based on the prevailing theory) - everyone honest to them self can see rationel thinking screams to heaven for help.
Distance to a star cannot be schizophrenia..

You might want to take a look at the details behind this experiment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

 

[The Man]

How can one and the same photon travels a different path from a distance star 14 billion LY way , - and until it hits the earth ?

The path from source to A and then to B includes from A to B. The path just from source to A doesn't include from A to B. What will A and B say about just the distance between A and B? Have you done the math yet?

Again just a ball bouncing on a train travels a different path depending on the frame of reference. Do the math. Heck, if it helps you just draw it out graphically, to scale, take measurements and then report your results.

Different observers (affected by different influence of gravity from earth) must agree that the distance the photon has travelled only seems to be different, but logic tells us this cannot be true.

Again the ball on a train example shows that they don't have to agree even with absolute space and absolute time. Do the math. Again this is a basic aspect of relativity that you seem to have some particular difficulty with even before SR and GR.

So the point is, - it is NOT the distance that change, - BUT the way different observers measure that distance.. which mean rulers must be variants.

In the ball on the train example and under Galilean relativity the rulers are the same yet the paths and distances are still different. You are going to have difficulty getting into just special relativity and relativistic speeds, where lengths and thus rulers are contracted (variant) if you can't understand a basic aspect of relativity that doesn't even include such variations.

Again it was pointed out to you some time ago that distances, wavelengths and thus rulers (as just some measure of distance) must vary for the speed of light to be constant. So you pretending to be the bastion of varying rulers is disingenuous. Do the math and you might just find exactly how they have to vary to maintain that consistency. Again your problem is that you just can't seem to agree with even yourself. You want rulers to vary but not distances when a ruler is just something of some distance. If distances can't vary then rulers can't either. Again do please get back to us when you can at least agree with just yourself or have actually done and can show us the math.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Its simple kindergarten math that speed multiplied with time = distance.

This must apply for both A and B...

It is TOTAL crap to believe that the same photon (from the experiment) can have followed two different paths, all attempt to explain such simple thought experiments fails , (based on the prevailing theory) - everyone honest to them self can see rationel thinking screams to heaven for help.
Distance to a star cannot be schizophrenia..

So this is the motivation for "Bjarne's Alternative Cosmology ^(tm)"?

Oh dear.

No Bjarne, the distance to the star is what it is, but it can appear different to different observers. Time dilation does that to people.

However, your A and B won't have to disagree. If they are scientists, they can do the math and find out what the real distance is (and if they are not scientists, they probably won't bother about a few decimals).

So, sorry, you have not shaken the paradigm, you have just noticed something everybody has known for decades.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

How can one and the same photon travels a different path from a distance star 14 billion LY way , - and until it hits the earth ?

Well in quantum theory .... but let's not go there.

No it travels the sam path.

Different observers (affected by different influence of gravity from earth) must agree that the distance the photon has travelled only seems to be different, but logic tells us this cannot be true.

Yes, it seems to be different. No we know this is not the case.

So the point is, - it is NOT the distance that change, - BUT the way different observers measure that distance.. which mean rulers must be relativistic variants.

Time is what changes. If your ruler depends on time, then it changes, too.

.... And?

Hans

 

[phunk]

and now you believe idiotic lensing effect is the solution, which also is also nothing but just bla bla bla.

Nothing but nonsense.

Do you not believe in gravitational lensing?

 

[Peregrinus]

Do you not believe in gravitational lensing?

For gravitational lensing, we have evidence; for Bjarne's maunderings, zilch.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Do you not believe in gravitational lensing?

For whatever reason, Bjarne does not believe in gravitational lensing. This in spite of the fact that HIS model would cause much stronger gravitational lensing. ... But, let us not expect logic consistency here.

Hans

 

[halleyscomet]

For whatever reason, Bjarne does not believe in gravitational lensing. This in spite of the fact that HIS model would cause much stronger gravitational lensing. ... But, let us not expect logic consistency here.



Hans

No wonder he can't figure out the math to support his theories. He'd need some remedial level of consistency before he could even start figuring out the math.

 

[Reality Check]

A and B can observe the same photon, ...

Physics makes that statement a lie, Bjarne.
Detect a single photon by making it hit a detector and the photon is absorbed by the detector. The best that can be done is to have a perfect mirror that absorbs the photon and emits a photon with the same energy. A and B can never observe the same photon.

 

[Reality Check]

Boiled down to the content of a nut shell you cannot account for the fact that A and B cannot agree about the distance to the star (that in the thought experiment) once emitted a photon (or two) hitting A and B.

That is a delusional statement, Bjarne, because you stated the reason in your thought experiment. A and B have clocks that are ticking at different rates (gravitational time dilation) and so cannot agree on the distance to the star by multiplying c by the time it took a photon to travel from the star to them !

 

[Reality Check]

Here is the answer to how it was possible to brainwash a whole world.

Followed by rubbish that does not show that the world has been brainwashed, Bjarne !

Your ignorance and denial of physics is not shared by the world. Your excusable ignorance of English as a second language is not shared by the world. Sticking to intolerant self-hypnotic brainwash is a dangerous thing and a disgrace to yourself. The honest thing to do is to learn what you are attempting to talk about, Bjarne.

 

[Giordano]

Here is the answer to how it was possible to brainwash a whole world.

One day you will understand a hell lot of innocent student pretend they understand something what really is full of contradictory illogical nonsense - just because if not they dont, - they will be considered as outsiders and even stupid. Everyone honest to one self, will know this is true

Just take a look at Hans latest answer, there are no logic in any of these post, just illogical bla bla bla lensing, and more bla bla - different path - bal bla bla -- that make no sence at all.

Intolerant mass hypnotic brainwash is a dangerous thing and a disgrace of the human race

Not surprisingly your understanding of why the Theory of Relativity was widely accepted is as wildly incorrect as your understanding of the theory itself.

Perhaps you might wish in particular to investigate why the majority of leaders in physics at the time came to reluctantly accept the theory despite their initial doubts and stubborn resistant to it. This had a lot to do with the theory accurately predicting unanticipated (in fact counter "intuitive") observations in the subsequent actual experiments. A strong of accurate predictions that continues to match new experimental results to this day.

But if you believe that your theory fits the facts even better, prove it scientifically. And that will involve mathematic proof, not just word arguments that, I regret to say, demonstrate an incorrect understanding of relativity itself and of physics in general. And a final hint- arguments in physics based on "common sense" do not work well. Simple example: common sense would be that the computer keys under your screen are solid, yet I trust that you realize that they are composed largely of empty space and only charge repulsion between the electron shells in you finger tips versus in the keys prevent your fingers from falling through the keyboard with every stroke. No, a lot of physics is not "common sense" at all.