• 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.
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

A frame defined relative to the CBR is still as relative a frame as any other. Your simple preference for it doesn't make it absolute.
The problem with GR is :…
  1. There was no reason to reject the ether theory

You have already been given the reasons

  • GR is not the correct theory for gravity

GR is not a theory of gravity it is a generalization of SR. It is Einstein's field equations that quantitatively model gravity. If you've got a problem with that model then you need to work and address the math of that model.
  • Black holes are completely misunderstood
.


Certainly by you.


Exactly how many times do we have to do the same erroneous list of yours?

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”

Don't try to pawn off your own ignorance and asserted deliberate lack of detail to others.
 
Last edited:
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.

Of course you can
Distance is only a distance you can measure
In UK they use inches , elsewhere foots, who knows some maybe use bigfoots and others meters, - etc............

I know some use small meters and other big meters

Did that make the point clear for you.,
 
Last edited:
GR is not a theory of gravity it is a generalization of SR. It is Einstein's field equations that quantitatively model gravity. If you've got a problem with that model then you need to work and address the math of that model.
.

I have already started...

I am 99,9999999999999999999999999999999999 % sure that Einstein also considered whether the ruler was a variant, and also whether this was the cause of the perihelion precision anomaly of Mercury.

The reason to that he very well could have been forced to give up such thought, is that he was not aware of relativistic resistance against motion, - and therefore he only had 1 chose, - which mean to believe that “length contraction” alone , - ( “curvature of space”) - is the cause of gravity.

The modified theory of gravity will show much more clearly, - how the combination between relativistic resistance against motion, - and the simple fact that the ruler is a variant, (which mean stronger gravity by perihelion than expected) is the true theory of the perihelion precision anomalies (as well as flyby anomalies)..

Simply because if the ruler stretches by perihelion, the distance to for example the Sun will decrease,(more than expected) and hence the force of gravity will increase..(more than expected) but off course only possible to understand for those that still believe that gravity is a force..

The cause of black holes is relativistic resistance against motion, - active so called “black holes” depend on period with orbit inclination more or less linear relative to the dark flow acceleration..

The cause of black holes, - are black, - is that light is pulled (stretched) to radio waves, - because in a gravitational field everything is stretching, not only time, also the ruler and any process.

The conflict with quantum physic will also vanish automatically, simply because the GR math is nonsenses.

Everything so simple and naturally.

And now just take it easy, math will come also for that part..
 
Last edited:
Of course you can
Distance is only a distance you can measure
In UK they use inches , elsewhere foots, who know some maybe some use bigfoots and others meters, - etc............

I know some use small meters and other big meters

Did that make the point clear for you.,

You seem to be just talking about units of measure for distance while simply and probably deliberately ignoring that a ruler (in whatever units you want) is still just a distance. Units may (and apparently do) confuse you, they don't confuse me and many others.
 
You seem to be just talking about units of measure for distance while simply and probably deliberately ignoring that a ruler (in whatever units you want) is still just a distance. Units may (and apparently do) confuse you, they don't confuse me and many others.

Small foots and Big foots are different
 
I have already started...

I am 99,9999999999999999999999999999999999 % sure that Einstein also considered whether the ruler was a variant, and also whether this was the cause of the perihelion precision anomaly of Mercury.

Seriously how dense can you be? Length contraction is explicitly a part of SR and Einstein speaks of rulers and clocks specifically. You seem to be indicating that you're "99,9999999999999999999999999999999999 % sure" of just some guess of yours instead of just relying on what Einstein explicitly and specifically said.


The reason to that he very well could have been forced to give up such thought, is that he was not aware of relativistic resistance against motion, - and therefore he only had 1 chose, - which mean to believe that “length contraction” alone , - ( “curvature of space”) - is the cause of gravity.

That's not the math. In the math the stress energy tensor "is the cause of gravity". Also "“length contraction” alone"?!?! It's a space-time manifold so it specifically isn't "“length contraction” alone". So once again you demonstrably haven't even started looking at the math or the resources already provided to you. Heck, you haven't even started on the basic concepts. You have much work to do.

The modified theory of gravity will show much more clearly, - how the combination between relativistic resistance against motion, - and the simple fact that the ruler is a variant, (which mean stronger gravity by perihelion than expected) is the true theory of the perihelion precision anomalies (as well as flyby anomalies)..

Simply because if the ruler stretches by perihelion, the distance to for example the Sun will decrease,(more than expected) and hence the force of gravity will increase..(more than expected) but off course only possible to understand for those that still believe that gravity is a force..

Well when you actually have some math to support that do please let us know.


The cause of black holes is relativistic resistance against motion, - active so called “black holes” depend on period with orbit more or less linear inclination relative to the dark flow acceleration..

The cause of black holes, - are black, - is that light is pulled (stretched) to radio waves, - because in a gravitational field everything is stretching, not only time, also the ruler and any process.

Well when you actually have some math to support that do please let us know.

The conflict with quantum physic will also vanish automatically, simply because the GR math is nonsenses.

Everything so simple and naturally.

And now just take it easy, math will come also for that part..


No it won't as the conflict between GR and QFT is that that former is continuous while the latter discrete. By all means please do let us know when you have some discrete math for gravity or continuous math for QFT. Clearly you don't understand what the conflict actually is.
 
Of course you can
Distance is only a distance you can measure
In UK they use inches , elsewhere foots, who knows some maybe use bigfoots and others meters, - etc............

I know some use small meters and other big meters

Did that make the point clear for you.,

While you did not appear to have a point in your response, it did remind me of the article, List of humorous units of measurement, specifically of the Smoot.

The smoot /ˈsmuːt/ is a nonstandard, humorous unit of length created as part of an MIT fraternity prank. It is named after Oliver R. Smoot, a fraternity pledge to Lambda Chi Alpha, who in October 1958 lay down repeatedly on the Harvard Bridge (between Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts) so that his fraternity brothers could use his height to measure the length of the bridge.[1]

Now, here is one of the issues you're having trouble understanding. Using Oliver R. Smoot as a ruler, we can measure objects in Smoots. For the sake of discussion, let's say Oliver R. Smoot is traveling horizontally, parallel to the ground. He is hurtling towards the back seat of your car. Now your car being a high efficiency electric vehicle with a top speed of 30 kilometers per hour, does not have a back seat capable of accommodating a horizontal Oliver Smoot. Fortunately, he is traveling at relativistic speeds, so he is experiencing Lorentz length contraction. As a result, Oliver Smoot, the living ruler, has contracted enough to fit inside the back seat of your car.

Now here's where things get weird.

Because the speed of light remains constant to all observers, your mother*, who is riding on Oliver Smoot during his high speed race to your car's back seat, perceives the CAR as being in motion and sees the CAR contracting, making it even LESS likely Smoot and his rider will fit inside.

This creates a paradox. You, believing in an absolute frame of reference, have no way of resolving this paradox. Since you've already conceded to the accuracy of the Lorentz equations, you also lack a way of AVOIDING this paradox. You have no means of safely stowing your mother and Oliver Smoot in the back seat of your car.

Fortunately, Einstein has strapped on his math cape and is rushing to the rescue with additional frames of reference. Smoot will only fit inside the back seat of the car if both his head and feet are close enough together. In relativity, this distance is relative to each observer. The idea that the Smoot, both as a man, and a ruler, has a "real" or "absolute" length that will "really" come into play when he passes through the back seat is a fallacy. Smoot will perceive he's fit inside the car, but your mother will perceive that he scoots trough the comically small clown car back seat without his head and feet being inside at the same time.

Regardless, I hope you drive a convertible. If not, your mother is getting knocked off Oliver Smoot at relativistic speeds, and while that'll be bad for both the car and your mother, I suspect your mother will fare worse.

*She's using him as a surf board. This is NOT a yo'mamma joke. Get your mind out of the gutter.

Extra Credit:

Use the Lorentz transformations to tell how much of Smoot's body will extend outside the car from the viewpoint of Bjarne's mother. By the way, this is the EXACT sort of math Bjarne need to be doing if he wants to back up his claims about overthrowing special relativity.

Sadistic extra credit:

Do the calculation in Smoots, taking into account relativistic Smoot contraction for each frame of reference.
 
Last edited:
...
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.

I myself am quite confident he cannot do any math, let alone 'the math' for his non existent theory.
There is no 'the math'. There is nothing but a yammering squeak.
 
I myself am quite confident he cannot do any math, let alone 'the math' for his non existent theory.
There is no 'the math'. There is nothing but a yammering squeak.

I was serious with the homework I gave him a previous post.

Use the Lorentz transformations to tell how much of Smoot's body will extend outside the car from the viewpoint of Bjarne's mother. By the way, this is the EXACT sort of math Bjarne need to be doing if he wants to back up his claims about overthrowing special relativity.

If he's really done the math needed to support his science denial, then that should be well within his capabilities.
 
Seriously how dense can you be? Length contraction is explicitly a part of SR and Einstein speaks of rulers and clocks specifically.

Yes you are right, Einstein should know he also could ignore the SR effect, regarding the perihelion aspect. Strange he took a such idiotic decision then.


Well when you actually have some math to support that do please let us know.

Let me see if I get a little time the next few weeks, I can approve the GR math aspect a little, maybe enough to that you will understand that there is one more, much more serious option..
 
I was serious with the homework I gave him a previous post.



If he's really done the math needed to support his science denial, then that should be well within his capabilities.

Sure, however it is not Bjarne's intention to be tested by anyone in any way whatsoever.
Any attempt to get him to do any actual work will be utterly in vain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom