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

[Bjarne]

Urbain Le Verrier, the man whose math found Neptune, slaved for years with the aid of a reasonable staff to find an explanation for Mercury's orbit. Despite endless efforts he never came up with a solution better than "asteroids inside Mercury's orbit."

Since you are, by your own admission, too lazy and too poorly educated to DO THE MATH needed to challenge relativity, why not go for a real-world, pragmatic option? If you can FIND the asteroids or a super-dense Planet Vulcan in an orbit inside Mercury's then you'll have solid proof that the relativistic equations used to plot out Mercury's orbit have to be wrong, because you'd have found the masses needed to make Mercury conform to Newtonian physics.

All that takes is a telescope and the appropriate sunglasses to avoid burning your retinas to a crisp while trying to find asteroids in a transit across the Sun.

Do it. Find Vulcan. Since you refuse to do any math, it's your best bet for challenging Relativity. I doubt anyone has even LOOKED for Vulcan in 100 years!

It’s not so easy
If the ruler is stretching not only the distance to the sun is smaller, the circumference of Mercury is also smaller.
The point is, do you really believe that the circumference distance of Mercury REALLY is smaller, OR do you believe that the ruler of mercury is just different...

Comrade, do you really believe a certain distance can be schizophrenics
Or in other words, - do do you really believe your ruler is a invariant?

Before you think you understand this discussion, be honest to your self, - now make clear to your self, - is the ruler....

a.) a variant
b.) an invariant

The different understanding of these option, is essential, - according to how you can understand the universe.
Simple Logic, - a simple thought experiment, - clearly tells you that; - that the ruler is a variant and therefore distances of the orbit of mercury and the rest of the universe is not multi - multi – multi schizophrenics...

Which mean Mercury is NOT following a different path, - BUT the way physic work on Mercury is just different......

Now, - Let me know your choose, is at a OR b ?

Then we can discuss further or better give up....... and better ask in the kindergarten for help-..

 

[Bjarne]

You said "the GR math is nonsenses(sic)." If you can show how Einstein's GR equations are wrong (internally inconsistent or contrary to observation or experimentation) do so. It would, at least, provide a way of furthering the discussion here. Short of that, you have no argument that can be regarded as scientific and you can be dismissed as having delusions and wasting everyone's time with crackpot notions.

Read the post above
The Universe is not insane schizophrenia, this is the first logical point we have to agree, after that we will hopefully agree, that Mercury NOT is following a different path, but rather just affected different by the well-known classic force of gravity, - because the ruler is a variant....

A perfect solution must also solves these GR problems….

1. The cause of flyby
2. Remover the conflict with quantum physic
3. Explain what this NASA scientist have found, or rather NOT found (instead of sweeping that too under the carpet) http://osnetdaily.com/2016/07/former-nasa-physicist-disputes-einsteins-relativity-theory/
4. Solve serveral conflict with science related to black holes..

Many cannot see these major conflict and problems with SR - 100 years propaganda have blinded the people , this part is the biggest stone to remove..

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, if Einstein didn't consider the effects on the lengths of rulers, and physicists are too dumb to notice such a problem, then why is undergraduate relativity taught with the concept of a "rigid ruler" as a tool to overcome the problems of the effect of length contraction on normal rulers?

Or, to put it another way - physicists are aware of the problem, as you would know if you had actually studied relativity.

I am almost sure he have consider that, but things are much more complicated, - because he did not understood relativistic resistance against motion. This phenomena will be neutralizes in a gravitational field (due to stronger gravity as expected) .

 

[Bjarne]

True.

False. All observers who do their math correctly will agree on the same world lines, even though they may describe them differently. The cause of those world lines, however, is related (by the geodesic equation) to the curvature of spacetime you're denying.

.

Here is where the chain went off. If the distance (circumference) is changing character (changing size),

an orbiting object, that have a certain speed would off course be force to following a different path, guided by the property of the new orbit ..

But the truth is that no distance at all cares about who is watching..
It’s insane even to keep such possibility open..

 

[BazBear]

It’s not so easy
If the ruler is stretching not only the distance to the sun is smaller, the circumference of Mercury is also smaller.
The point is, do you really believe that the circumference distance of Mercury REALLY is smaller, OR do you believe that the ruler of mercury is just different...

Comrade, do you really believe a certain distance can be schizophrenics
Or in other words, - do do you really believe your ruler is a invariant?

Before you think you understand this discussion, be honest to your self, - now make clear to your self, - is the ruler....

a.) a variant
b.) an invariant

The different understanding of these option, is essential, - according to how you can understand the universe.
Simple Logic, - a simple thought experiment, - clearly tells you that; - that the ruler is a variant and therefore distances of the orbit of mercury and the rest of the universe is not multi - multi – multi schizophrenics...

Which mean Mercury is NOT following a different path, - BUT the way physic work on Mercury is just different......

Now, - Let me know your choose, is at a OR b ?

Then we can discuss further or better give up....... and better ask in the kindergarten for help-..

Well, in kindergarten they do use rulers to measure lengths and distances. They are, however, rather inconvenient for astronomical measurements.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

True.

False. All observers who do their math correctly will agree on the same world lines, even though they may describe them differently. The cause of those world lines, however, is related (by the geodesic equation) to the curvature of spacetime you're denying.

.

Here is where the chain went off. If the distance (circumference) is changing character (changing size),

[QIMG]http://www.dr.dk/images/other/2015/06/11/8294e5cf-d87a-4594-91f4-c640e123d164_image1.jpg[/QIMG]
an orbiting object, that have a certain speed would off course be force to following a different path, guided by the property of the new orbit ..

But the truth is that no distance at all cares about who is watching..
It’s insane even to keep such possibility open..

That is of course the standard "common sense" objection to Einstein's theories of relativity. Now that Einstein's theories are supported by a truly remarkable body of experimental evidence, your objection has become more widely known as the standard "crackpot" objection to Einstein's theories.

The natural world is not obliged to arrange its affairs to align with your notion of common sense, and the last few centuries have shown common sense to be a poor substitute for mathematically rigorous theories whose predictions match observations and experimental results.

In relativity, world lines (your "paths") are invariant. For example, all observers will agree upon Mercury's world line, although they may describe Mercury's orbit using different coordinate systems. The Newtonian path predicted for Mercury is different from the relativistic prediction for Mercury. Observations have shown the relativistic prediction to be the correct one.

Your remarks I quoted above reveal your profound ignorance of Einstein's theories of relativity. World lines (paths) are not just distances. World lines are invariants; distances are not.

 

[halleyscomet]

It’s not so easy
If the ruler is stretching not only the distance to the sun is smaller, the circumference of Mercury is also smaller.
The point is, do you really believe that the circumference distance of Mercury REALLY is smaller, OR do you believe that the ruler of mercury is just different...

Comrade, do you really believe a certain distance can be schizophrenics
Or in other words, - do do you really believe your ruler is a invariant?

Before you think you understand this discussion, be honest to your self, - now make clear to your self, - is the ruler....

a.) a variant
b.) an invariant

The different understanding of these option, is essential, - according to how you can understand the universe.
Simple Logic, - a simple thought experiment, - clearly tells you that; - that the ruler is a variant and therefore distances of the orbit of mercury and the rest of the universe is not multi - multi – multi schizophrenics...

Which mean Mercury is NOT following a different path, - BUT the way physic work on Mercury is just different......

Now, - Let me know your choose, is at a OR b ?

Then we can discuss further or better give up....... and better ask in the kindergarten for help-..

None of that was a response to what I wrote.

None of that addressed the theory of relativity. You're not taking about real science, you're arguing about an imaginary straw-man theory in your head and claiming that imaginary theory is relativity.

The way you approach the theory of relativity reminds me of the Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic "The Resurrection."



That's about how related your imaginary version of Relativity is to the actual theory.

 

[The Man]

It’s not so easy
If the ruler is stretching not only the distance to the sun is smaller, the circumference of Mercury is also smaller.
The point is, do you really believe that the circumference distance of Mercury REALLY is smaller, OR do you believe that the ruler of mercury is just different...

Comrade, do you really believe a certain distance can be schizophrenics
Or in other words, - do do you really believe your ruler is a invariant?

Before you think you understand this discussion, be honest to your self, - now make clear to your self, - is the ruler....

a.) a variant
b.) an invariant

The different understanding of these option, is essential, - according to how you can understand the universe.
Simple Logic, - a simple thought experiment, - clearly tells you that; - that the ruler is a variant and therefore distances of the orbit of mercury and the rest of the universe is not multi - multi – multi schizophrenics...

Which mean Mercury is NOT following a different path, - BUT the way physic work on Mercury is just different......

Now, - Let me know your choose, is at a OR b ?

Then we can discuss further or better give up....... and better ask in the kindergarten for help-..

Again, as you've already been informed multiple times, distances vary and as rulers are just something of some distance they likewise vary. An observer that measures some distance in some direction shorter than you will also measure your ruler as shorter in that direction. Both SR and GR address this. What you seem to keep forgetting is that it is some other observer that measures the distance and your ruler different than you. It is time for you to start being honest and stop pretending anyone here (other than you) is claiming rulers don't vary. Time to stop arguing with just yourself and start doing the math.

 

[halleyscomet]

I am almost sure he have consider that, but things are much more complicated, - because he did not understood relativistic resistance against motion. This phenomena will be neutralizes in a gravitational field (due to stronger gravity as expected) .

How would you know what Eisenstein did and did not understand?

You've demonstrated repeatedly that you know nothing about the theory of relativity. You're not taking about the theory itself, but a fever dream of nonsense whirling in a miasma of ignorance and fetid humors, contaminating your thoughts and ideas with random flotsam that, when it's slimy eldritch suckers attach themselves randomly to the ichor slicked walls of your mind, you read the rotting tentacles like the guts of a slaughtered goat and account the results a "theory" superior to the work of Einstein.

You are in no position to talk about the Theory of Relativity, as you clearly know nothing of its content.

 

[The Man]

I am almost sure he have consider that, but things are much more complicated, - because he did not understood relativistic resistance against motion. This phenomena will be neutralizes in a gravitational field (due to stronger gravity as expected) .

Once again your "resistance against motion" isn't "relativistic" and you just sticking the word "relativistic" in front of it doesn't make it so. You speak of it yourself as a result of a flow, a "dark" flow but a flow non the less. That's no more relativistic than the flow of some river affecting motion with or against that flow. The only difference seems to be that I don't recall you mentioning the effect of that flow to transverse motion.

 

[The Man]

Here is where the chain went off. If the distance (circumference) is changing character (changing size),

[qimg]http://www.dr.dk/images/other/2015/06/11/8294e5cf-d87a-4594-91f4-c640e123d164_image1.jpg[/qimg]
an orbiting object, that have a certain speed would off course be force to following a different path, guided by the property of the new orbit ..

But the truth is that no distance at all cares about who is watching..
It’s insane even to keep such possibility open..

Once again distance is an aspect of the coordinate system you use. Even just in the Galilean relativity example (the ball on the train). The distance the ball travels in the forward direction depends on reference frame of "who is watching". Again time for you to start actually doing the work just to learn the basic concepts.

 

[Bjarne]

Again, as you've already been informed multiple times, distances vary and as rulers are just something of some distance they likewise vary. An observer that measures some distance in some direction shorter than you will also measure your ruler as shorter in that direction.

Funny I was thrown out of a scientific forum for claiming exactly like that...

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-speed-of-light-always-299-792-458-m-s.655380/page-2

Both SR and GR address this.

Welcome to cranks list

What you seem to keep forgetting is that it is some other observer that measures the distance and your ruler different than you.

Once again if you believer rulers are variant you is a crank and not welcomed in the brainwashed "scientific" community

Do you now understand why I say the scientific community is fanatic intolerant and brainwashed
THERE ARE ONLY ONE GOOD..
Haleluja..?

It is time for you to start being honest and stop pretending anyone here (other than you) is claiming rulers don't vary. Time to stop arguing with just yourself and start doing the math.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-speed-of-light-always-299-792-458-m-s.655380/page-2

I am happy for having you with me..
I think you will be the first person in the universe I have saved from 100 years damaging massive brainwash.

Do you know what you really does when saying the ruler is a variant ?
You is then saying that the curvature of space, is not true, - but only a local transformation phenomena.. , and therefore NO CHANGE OF ANY PATH

Its time for you to begin to understand relativity, don't you think ?

Don't worry MAN, your opinion shows you can be saved.. You brain is working.. I am happy to hear that there are at least 1 whit such a brilliant right half brain....

Imagination is more important than knowledge..

 

[Bjarne]

None of that was a response to what I wrote.

None of that addressed the theory of relativity. You're not taking about real science, you're arguing about an imaginary straw-man theory in your head and claiming that imaginary theory is relativity.

The way you approach the theory of relativity reminds me of the Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal comic "The Resurrection."

That's about how related your imaginary version of Relativity is to the actual theory.

Nothing but personall attack
Its simple just answer the question

Before you think you understand this discussion, be honest to your self, - now make clear to your self, -

Is the ruler..

a.) a variant
b.) an invariant

 

[halleyscomet]

Welcome to cranks list

Welcoming him as on of your own, eh? How congenial, yet insulting.

Do you now understand why I say the scientific community is fanatic intolerant and brainwashed

Nonsense. Careers are made by overturning, not reiterating. You only THINK science functions under brainwashed group-think because, being hopelessly illiterate on the topic of physics, you have your diseased and fanciful ideas laughed off by competent people who know what they're talking about.

Lets be blunt, you sincerely claim you can challenge the mathematics of Relativity with Kindergarten math. You're openly disdainful of the role of complex math in PHYSICS. That's like trying to do petrochemical engineering without interacting with any molecules containing carbon atoms.

Its time for you to begin to understand relativity, don't you think ?

First he'd need to learn from someone who DID understand it, and as you've repeatedly demonstrated in this thread, that's NOT you.

Imagination is more important than knowledge..

I can see why you'd say that, seeing as you clearly have no knowledge, especially about the mathematics involved.

 

[Bjarne]

How would you know what Eisenstein did and did not understand?

You've demonstrated repeatedly that you know nothing about the theory of relativity. You're not taking about the theory itself, but a fever dream of nonsense whirling in a miasma of ignorance and fetid humors, contaminating your thoughts and ideas with random flotsam that, when it's slimy eldritch suckers attach themselves randomly to the ichor slicked walls of your mind, you read the rotting tentacles like the guts of a slaughtered goat and account the results a "theory" superior to the work of Einstein.

No amigo
If the ruler is a variant, it is the ruler that is changing the lenght you can measure ( and the measured distance is not the same) ..
But in this case the local transformation it is NOT REALLY changing any path or distance

Father (Big Foot) and Little peter (small food) working in the green forest is NOT changing the paths because father have big foots and Peters small foots..
Litter Peter from the kindergarten (we call him small foot) is fully aware of that fact.,.

In that case the distance is in fact stable. And the path inside the forest is stable

There are NO curvature of the path inside the forest.. just because Peters and his father is walking there sometimes..

In this scenario it make no since to believe that anything follows different paths, due to different relativistic foots (ruler) transformation .

BUT if it is the path (or orbit) that is changing (due to the so-called curvature of space) (which we hear again and again is according to the holy book), - then object will follow a different parh - yes , and GR is true..

• Which scientific test shows that the any path has change?

A simple kindergarten thought experiment shows that it is the ruler that is a variant --- NOT the path

Come out of your box fellow and open your eyes..

 

[halleyscomet]

Nothing but personall(sic) attack
Its simple just answer the question

Your grotesque ignorance regarding the theory of relativity has been demonstrated multiple times in this thread. Pointing out you clearly have no idea what you're talking about is not a personal attack, but a demonstrable fact, as defensible as the math you flee from while feigning disdain.

Before you think you understand this discussion, be honest to your self, - now make clear to your self, -

Is the ruler..

a.) a variant
b.) an invariant

I'm not the one talking to you about rulers. This is the post you replied to with an unrelated rant about rulers:

Urbain Le Verrier, the man whose math found Neptune, slaved for years with the aid of a reasonable staff to find an explanation for Mercury's orbit. Despite endless efforts he never came up with a solution better than "asteroids inside Mercury's orbit."

Since you are, by your own admission, too lazy and too poorly educated to DO THE MATH needed to challenge relativity, why not go for a real-world, pragmatic option? If you can FIND the asteroids or a super-dense Planet Vulcan in an orbit inside Mercury's then you'll have solid proof that the relativistic equations used to plot out Mercury's orbit have to be wrong, because you'd have found the masses needed to make Mercury conform to Newtonian physics.

All that takes is a telescope and the appropriate sunglasses to avoid burning your retinas to a crisp while trying to find asteroids in a transit across the Sun.

Do it. Find Vulcan. Since you refuse to do any math, it's your best bet for challenging Relativity. I doubt anyone has even LOOKED for Vulcan in 100 years!

Your sudden myopic focus upon rulers does not distract from the fact that you are openly disdainful of doing the MATH needed to prove ANY of your ideas. The mere fact that you think the equations unimportant is proof beyond all measure that you have no business discussing physics, theoretical or otherwise.

 

[halleyscomet]

No amigo
If the ruler is a variant, it is the ruler that is changing the lenght you can measure.. But is NOT changing any path
Father (Big Foot) and Little peter (small food) working in the green forest is NOT changing the paths because father have big foots and Peters small foots..
Litter Peter from the kindergarten (we call him small foot) is fully aware of that fact.,.

In that case the distance is in fact stable. And the path inside the forest is stable

There are NO curvature of the path inside the forest.. just because Peters and his father is walking there sometimes..

In this scenario it make no since to believe that anything follows different paths, due to different relativistic foots (ruler) transformation .

BUT if it is the path (or orbit) that is changing (due to the so-called curvature of space) (which we hear again and again is according to the holy book), - then object will follow a different part, and GR is true..

• Which scientific test shows that the any path has change?

Come out of your box fellow and open your eyes..

Again with the rulers.

Your obsession with rulers isn't helping you, it's just a distraction. Perhaps that's your intention. Rulers being variant won't make Newton's equations suddenly predict Mercury's path accurately. Rulers being variant or invariant won't suddenly make Einstein's relativistic equations NOT accurately predict the orbit of Mercury.

You're engaging in analogy wankery while ignoring the REAL issue, the math.

 

[Bjarne]

I can see why you'd say that, seeing as you clearly have no knowledge, especially about the mathematics involved.

First we have to agree about the kindergarten stuff, then we can jump further into the math
OK ?

 

[Bjarne]

Again with the rulers.

Your obsession with rulers isn't helping you, it's just a distraction. Perhaps that's your intention. Rulers being variant won't make Newton's equations suddenly predict Mercury's path accurately. Rulers being variant or invariant won't suddenly make Einstein's relativistic equations NOT accurately predict the orbit of Mercury.

You're engaging in analogy wankery while ignoring the REAL issue, the math.

If this is your conclusion I am sorry to conclude you have just demonstrated ´that you don’t understand ´the most basis of relativity..

A paradigm for the universe that simple fails when tested with a simple kindergarten thought eksperiment, - is nothing but illogical rubbish. You have to relate, to this question.

Think about it
Its always time to be honest and change your minds..

 

[halleyscomet]

First we have to agree about the kindergarten stuff, then we can jump further into the math
OK ?

The claim that kindergarten math can be used to discredit any aspect of relativity is comically wrong.

Do you agree or disagree?