• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Man said:
The path from source to A and then to B includes from A to B. .
Click to expand...
The distance between A and B is such an insignificant distance that you can ignore it.
Travel along a path that take a split second is nothing compared to the time dilation between A's and B's clock that happens during 14 billion years or more
 
halleyscomet said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think you forgot what this thread is about´. Please read the headline
The first part is DONE..
Its completely done also the math, - comrade.
And there is no more to add.
Let me repeat that this thread is about SR that will fall apart, -. IT WILL HAPPEN, and the MATH is PERFECT

Now we discuss the next attack, - I am only in the process of casting the canon balls, that also will bring the brainwashed aspect of GR down.
And YES more work have to be done.
So keep it cool for a while fellow and you will see, also a large part of GR will fall apart, and the math required will also soon be brought up, the one way or the other.

In the meantime let us have some hypothetical discussion about what is wrong with GR..

Every farmer know there is already huge problems with that aspect of the theory, such as black holes, + with quantum physics, + with flyby anomalies.
.
If the ruler is a variant, it is NOT insignificant
 
MRC_Hans said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes this is true, distance varies for different observers, and this is why it is so logic that rulers must vary too.

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).
Click to expand...
Still rulers must be variants, at least for scientists.

So, sorry, you have not shaken the paradigm, you have just noticed something everybody has known for decades
Click to expand...
.
No amigo, I was even thrown out of a scientific forum for insisting what everybody should know. If the ruler is a variant GR will no longer be the same theory.

And this shows how intolerant and brainwashed that community really is
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
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.
Click to expand...
This was the modified experiment I mentioned 1 or 2 days ago
 
Reality Check said:
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 :jaw-dropp!
Click to expand...

It doesn’t matter even when reflecting a laser on the moon, and by that measure the distance, still A and B cannot agree about the distance to the Moon.
 
Giordano said:
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.
Click to expand...

Both GR and SR was accepted because parts of "these" was correct and begun to give predictable results.. and therefore the full range of the theory was more or less naive accepted.. included the rubbish part of it..

SR and GR is "mainly" correct except.-...

SR is only true in an absolute motion reference frame

The problem with GR is :…
  1. There was no reason to reject the ether theory
  2. GR is not the correct theory for gravity
  3. Black holes are completely misunderstood.

Every farmer knows there are already huge problems with the very hypothetical aspect of GR , such as black holes, + the conflict with quantum physics, + problems flyby anomalies.

Shortly spoken GR is not the correct theory for gravity, there are no curvature of space, - no black holes, - and space is rather an elastic “ether”
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
.......there are no curvature of space, - no black holes, - and space is rather an elastic “ether”
Click to expand...

Great, thanks. Glad you sorted this out for us. Now, could you just get it published so that we can get it out into schools quickly. We'd not want the next generation brought up misunderstanding the universe, would we.

Sorry to disturb your tranquility in this little echo chamber.
 
Bjarne said:
I think you forgot what this thread is about´. Please read the headline
The first part is DONE..
Its completely done also the math, - comrade.
And there is no more to add.
Let me repeat that this thread is about SR that will fall apart, -. IT WILL HAPPEN, and the MATH is PERFECT

Now we discuss the next attack, - I am only in the process of casting the canon balls, that also will bring the brainwashed aspect of GR down.
And YES more work have to be done.
So keep it cool for a while fellow and you will see, also a large part of GR will fall apart, and the math required will also soon be brought up, the one way or the other.

In the meantime let us have some hypothetical discussion about what is wrong with GR..

Every farmer know there is already huge problems with that aspect of the theory, such as black holes, + with quantum physics, + with flyby anomalies.
.
If the ruler is a variant, it is NOT insignificant
Click to expand...



Now you're deliberately lying. You've admitted you haven't done the math and even bragged about your laziness in not doing so. Now you're suddenly claiming the math is done and perfect, even though you've never once provided it?

I suggest you go back and re-read your own posts. At least TRY for some consistency.

The more you lie and change your claims about the math behind your science denial, the more I think you're either intentionally trolling or fully aware of what a slab of garbage your science denial is.

That's what it is at this point. You have not described an actual theory in his thread. You've just made one random denial after another, contradicting your own claims left and right. Why do you bother? What are yo trying to achieve?
 
Bjarne said:
...
Let me repeat that this thread is about my claim that* SR that will fall apart, -. IT WILL HAPPEN, and the MATH is PERFECT
...
Click to expand...
hilited improvement* by Daylightstar
It's just about your claim, of which the content is not adequately described, meaning that no 'falling apart of SR' needs to be expected.
You may fantasize about being a science superstar but you don't have what it takes and you're simply not capable of doing the actual work, you barely know how to do basic arithmetic.
 
Bjarne said:
Its completely done also the math, - comrade.
And there is no more to add.
Click to expand...

My forum name is not an accident. Edmond Halley was one of the movers and the shakers who helped usher in the dawn of mathematics as the language of science. He goaded Newton into publishing and was the first editor of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

Go read the book. It's a better reflection of the scope and scale of math needed to change the course of science. You have NOT done the math and you know it. You have written a introduction and declared it to be the entire thesis.

Your puffed up, pompous claims about the status of the math supposedly supporting your science denial is, to be kind, absurd. It's ignorant and naive to the point where I question the competence of your science teachers. You appear to have been educated by morons.

Where DID you get your science education?

How many drugs were your science teachers on while mangling the job of giving you a remedial education?

Bjarne said:
Let me repeat that this thread is about SR that will fall apart, -. IT WILL HAPPEN, and the MATH is PERFECT
Click to expand...

In the unlikely event that special relativity is a doomed theory that will soon collapse and be wholly discarded, I can guarantee, your scientifically illiterate undulating wad of shifting lies and ego will have nothing to do with it.

Daylightstar said:
hilited improvement* by Daylightstar
It's just about your claim, of which the content is not adequately described, meaning that no 'falling apart of SR' needs to be expected.
You may fantasize about being a science superstar but you don't have what it takes and you're simply not capable of doing the actual work, you barely know how to do basic arithmetic.
Click to expand...

Either he can't do the math and is faking it, hoping to bluff his way through the need, or he CAN do the math and can't manage to admit his science denial (It's an insult to science to call it a "theory) is excrement.
 
Last edited:
halleyscomet said:
Now you're deliberately lying. You've admitted you haven't done the math and even bragged about your laziness in not doing so. Now you're suddenly claiming the math is done and perfect, even though you've never once provided it?

I suggest you go back and re-read your own posts. At least TRY for some consistency.

The more you lie and change your claims about the math behind your science denial, the more I think you're either intentionally trolling or fully aware of what a slab of garbage your science denial is.

That's what it is at this point. You have not described an actual theory in his thread. You've just made one random denial after another, contradicting your own claims left and right. Why do you bother? What are yo trying to achieve?
Click to expand...

Rubbish

The SR math is finish I wrote that all the time, as well as no more need to be added..
 
Bjarne said:
The distance between A and B is such an insignificant distance that you can ignore it.
Click to expand...

Great, so the light never goes past A. You can't have it both ways. Either you just want to ignore A to B or A to B is part of a path that just to A doesn't include.


Bjarne said:
Travel along a path that take a split second is nothing compared to the time dilation between A's and B's clock that happens during 14 billion years or more
Click to expand...

How would you know how long it takes, have you done the math? The gravitational gradient that makes your "time dilation between A's and B's clock" is, well, just between A and B. That proportion is still the same regardless of how little or how long of a length of time you consider. Again what do A and B measure as the distance just between A and B? Do the math.

Again it is actually all this nonsense that is irrelevant as differences in the coordinate values of events or just spatially the locations of events based on the reference frame used is the fundamental basis of any form of relativity. You can't refute relativity in any form simply by asserting its fundamental and easily demonstrable basis.
 
halleyscomet said:
My forum name is not an accident. Edmond Halley was one of the movers and the shakers who helped usher in the dawn of mathematics as the language of science. He goaded Newton into publishing and was the first editor of Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.

Go read the book. It's a better reflection of the scope and scale of math needed to change the course of science. You have NOT done the math and you know it. You have written a introduction and declared it to be the entire thesis.

Your puffed up, pompous claims about the status of the math supposedly supporting your science denial is, to be kind, absurd. It's ignorant and naive to the point where I question the competence of your science teachers. You appear to have been educated by morons.

Where DID you get your science education?

How many drugs were your science teachers on while mangling the job of giving you a remedial education?

In the unlikely event that special relativity is a doomed theory that will soon collapse and be wholly discarded, I can guarantee, your scientifically illiterate undulating wad of shifting lies and ego will have nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

Rubbish

The SR math is finish I wrote that all the time, as well as no m ore need to be added..

The SR math is very very very simple and easy, and enough to predict what is wrong with SR
 
Bjarne said:
.
If the ruler is a variant, it is NOT insignificant
Click to expand...

The ruler is just a distance and that fact is NOT insignificant. Again you can't have it both ways, rulers that vary and distances that don't. Again rulers and distances are just coordinate values that depend on the coordinates system (reference frame) you use.
 
Bjarne said:
Yes this is true, distance varies for different observers, and this is why it is so logic that rulers must vary too.
Click to expand...

Well, look who finally caught up!

Bjarne said:
Still rulers must be variants, at least for scientists.


.
No amigo, I was even thrown out of a scientific forum for insisting what everybody should know. If the ruler is a variant GR will no longer be the same theory.
Click to expand...

Well, no wonder, as GR is just a generalization of SR and SR includes transformations of spatial coordinates. In other words "If the ruler is a variant GR will" be exactly the same. Your "insisting" simply demonstrated that you didn't know what you were talking about.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom