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

[Dancing David]

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.

Uh huh, sure, pull the other one, it has bells on it

 

[Beady]

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 .

And saying thus, he drew forth his wand and waved it thrice over over his knob and Lo! there came forth unto the multitude a dribble of jizz before the throng, in testament whereof he besought before them the mitre of his soulless schlong.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: The delusion that a "conflict with quantum physic" exists and will vanish

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

24 March 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that a "conflict with quantum physic" exists and will magically vanish because of your ignorance of the math of both GR and QM!

GR is a separate theory from QM and does not conflict with it. The delusion you have is about combining GR and QM. Enormously smarter and more knowledgeable people than you have been working on this for many decades and not succeeded. This is because the problem is enormously complicated mainly because of the very different nature of the mathematical basis of the two theories.

 

[Reality Check]

True, shooting down SR is that easy

A kindergartner spouting incoherent nonsense does not shoot down anything except the kindergartner, Bjarne !
A kindergartner with the idea that they know anything about SR is making up a fairy story. It takes education to understand SR. It takes willingness to learn to understand SR which you have not shown for the past 7 years.
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!).

 

[halleyscomet]

I've been listening to the audiobook of "The Hunt for Vulcan" and it's fascinating, especially in light of this thread. The role of monumental, multi-year, feats of mathematics in the discovery of of planets is breathtaking.

One of the facts that I find quite funny in light of this thread is WHO put the nail in the coffin of the aether theory. Newton. His laws of gravity and their accurate predictions of the orbits of MOST the planets proved that the aether, which necessitated a whirlpool action to cause the orbits of the planets, was wrong.

Belief in the aether by the 1800's was a bit like being a creationist today. Believing in the aether now is a bit like being a 21st century alchemist trying to turn lead to gold, that is, an idiot.

 

[Perpetual Student]

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

How about a little specificity. What aspect of Einstein's GR tensor equation is nonsense?

 

[Perpetual Student]

I've been listening to the audiobook of "The Hunt for Vulcan" and it's fascinating, especially in light of this thread. The role of monumental, multi-year, feats of mathematics in the discovery of of planets is breathtaking.

One of the facts that I find quite funny in light of this thread is WHO put the nail in the coffin of the aether theory. Newton. His laws of gravity and their accurate predictions of the orbits of MOST the planets proved that the aether, which necessitated a whirlpool action to cause the orbits of the planets, was wrong.

Belief in the aether by the 1800's was a bit like being a creationist today. Believing in the aether now is a bit like being a 21st century alchemist trying to turn lead to gold, that is, an idiot.

I don't think that's true. The aether was a serious candidate for the propigation of light right until Einstein's SR paper. The Lorentz transformation was specifically formulated to deal with the effects of the aether.

See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

What is now often called Lorentz ether theory (LET) has its roots in Hendrik Lorentz's "theory of electrons", which was the final point in the development of the classical aether theories at the end of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century. Lorentz's initial theory was created between 1892 and 1895 and was based on a completely motionless aether. It explained the failure of the negative aether drift experiments to first order in v/c by introducing an auxiliary variable called "local time" for connecting systems at rest and in motion in the aether.

In 1905, Albert Einstein published his paper on what is now called special relativity. In this paper, by examining the fundamental meanings of the space and time coordinates used in physical theories, Einstein showed that the "effective" coordinates given by the Lorentz transformation were in fact the inertial coordinates of relatively moving frames of reference. From this followed all of the physically observable consequences of LET, along with others, all without the need to postulate an unobservable entity (the ether). Einstein identified two fundamental principles, each founded on experience, from which all of Lorentz's electrodynamics follows:

1. The laws by which physical processes occur are the same with respect to any system of inertial coordinates (the principle of relativity)
2. In empty space light propagates at an absolute speed c in any system of inertial coordinates (the principle of the constancy of light)

 

[halleyscomet]

I don't think that's true. The aether was a serious candidate for the propigation of light right until Einstein's SR paper. The Lorentz transformation was specifically formulated to deal with the effects of the aether.

See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Ahh. I am mistaken then. The aether theory as a means of explaining planetary movement was killed by Newton, at least according to the book in question. Clearly another form of it survived as a temporary explanation for light. Thank you.

I suppose the aether is a bit like God, filling gaps until science ushers it along to ever smaller corners of theory.

 

[Peregrinus]

Filling gaps! Now, by [G]od, we're (maybe) onto something*!


*"Something" here is ill-defined but fun to play with.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Ahh. I am mistaken then. The aether theory as a means of explaining planetary movement was killed by Newton, at least according to the book in question. Clearly another form of it survived as a temporary explanation for light. Thank you.

I suppose the aether is a bit like God, filling gaps until science ushers it along to ever smaller corners of theory.

I'm not familiar with that book about the Vulcan hypothesis. However, based on some other comments you have made about it, I'm wondering about its historical accuracy, in general. Perhaps I'm jumping to an incorrect conclusion.

 

[halleyscomet]

I'm not familiar with that book about the Vulcan hypothesis. However, based on some other comments you have made about it, I'm wondering about its historical accuracy, in general. Perhaps I'm jumping to an incorrect conclusion.

I have the audio book through audible.com and they've rolled out a "send a book" feature. PM me an email address and I'll send you the audio book. If it turns out to be inaccurate I'll take advantage of Audible's trade-in program to get something else.

 

[The Man]

I'm not familiar with that book about the Vulcan hypothesis. However, based on some other comments you have made about it, I'm wondering about its historical accuracy, in general. Perhaps I'm jumping to an incorrect conclusion.

Someone posted a decent history of the aether up thread but I can't seem to find it now. So here is just the wiki article. Got more uses than water in homeopathy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element)

 

[Perpetual Student]

I have the audio book through audible.com and they've rolled out a "send a book" feature. PM me an email address and I'll send you the audio book. If it turns out to be inaccurate I'll take advantage of Audible's trade-in program to get something else.

No need and I apologize for my misconceptions. I just noticed that Neil DeGrasse Tyson was quite lavish in his praise of the book. There is no doubt that he would have noticed historical inaccuracies.
As Indicated in the link The Man has provided, the aether has taken on many manifestations over the centuries. I was assuming we were discussing the luminiferous aether of the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

[TheSupermeerkat]

So when the GPS satellites stop working? I'm presuming that's what will happen when the *theory* of relativity falls apart.

 

[halleyscomet]

No need and I apologize for my misconceptions. I just noticed that Neil DeGrasse Tyson was quite lavish in his praise of the book. There is no doubt that he would have noticed historical inaccuracies.
As Indicated in the link The Man has provided, the aether has taken on many manifestations over the centuries. I was assuming we were discussing the luminiferous aether of the 18th and 19th centuries.

I'll attribute the confusion in this case to a lack of clarity on my part. I'm the one who muddled the two aether concepts involved.

This does however provide an excellent example of how easy it is to admit an error, a concept a certain member of this thread could benefit greatly from. By admitting I made an error I do not have to defend that error. I do not have to twist future discussion into convoluted apologetic worthy of a Biblical literalist to save face. Yes, I lose the ability to mock 1800's luminous aether proponents for defending the aether theory Newton destroyed with his gravity equations, but that leverage was based upon an error on my part, a muddling of two disparate theories similar in name. Trying to use it would have only compounded my embarrassment down the road.

"I was wrong," is an incredibly powerful sentence.

 

[The Man]

So when the GPS satellites stop working? I'm presuming that's what will happen when the *theory* of relativity falls apart.

Again depends on how fast the falling apart propagates and where it starts. So it could have fallen apart somewhere and just ain't got to us yet. There is also the possibility of and exponential collapse expansion. Known as an inflationary collapse.


/sarcasm

 

[halleyscomet]

Again depends on how fast the falling apart propagates and where it starts. So it could have fallen apart somewhere and just ain't got to us yet. There is also the possibility of and exponential collapse expansion. Known as an inflationary collapse.


/sarcasm

You see, Bjarne is a time traveler from the future, come back to warn us that a rogue member of the Q Continuum is going to change the laws of physics in the universe to be Newtonian instead of relativistic. The problem is, the time travel process left him with only fragmentary memories, so he can't, for example, warn us we need to prepare hundreds of nukes to blast rogue objects as they hurtle toward Earth; he can only rant and rave about relativity falling apart, because that's the bulk of what he can remember.

What?

It makes as much sense as any of his contradictory ranting.

 

[Dancing David]

Hans let’s say you have eat too much by MC Donald and your weight is +30 kilo, and let’s say you live in the top of the skyscraper. Both elevator is down today you have to take the stairs.. Its dame hard, you need a lot of ENERGY to get hope.
WHERE does that energy go.. – You can be satisfied to say ahh it’s now just potential energy. Well correct, - BUT what is THAT and what in hell have potential energy to do with E=Mc^2
The Mass f your body MUST increase on you way up the stairs, - it’s a mathematical fact not only an expression.

You keep asserting this, yet you have yet to demonstrate it.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Considering the thousands of satellites orbiting the earth, why isn't this detected in them, like the GPS satellites...

 

[halleyscomet]

Considering the thousands of satellites orbiting the earth, why isn't this detected in them, like the GPS satellites...

http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy.

Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion.

Further, the satellites are in orbits high above the Earth, where the curvature of spacetime due to the Earth's mass is less than it is at the Earth's surface. A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away (see the Black Holes lecture). As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using General Relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.

The combination of these two relativitic effects means that the clocks on-board each satellite should tick faster than identical clocks on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day (45-7=38)! This sounds small, but the high-precision required of the GPS system requires nanosecond accuracy, and 38 microseconds is 38,000 nanoseconds. If these effects were not properly taken into account, a navigational fix based on the GPS constellation would be false after only 2 minutes, and errors in global positions would continue to accumulate at a rate of about 10 kilometers each day! The whole system would be utterly worthless for navigation in a very short time. This kind of accumulated error is akin to measuring my location while standing on my front porch in Columbus, Ohio one day, and then making the same measurement a week later and having my GPS receiver tell me that my porch and I are currently somewhere up in the air many kilometers away.

Saying "GPS relies upon relativity" isn't just glib hyperbole. If Bjarne's ideas were accurate, then the current GPS clock adjustments would be making GPS LESS accurate VERY quickly.

Relativistic Clock Correction