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

[The Man]

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

Actually what you said before is that you were thrown out for insisting GR would be different with variant rulers (distances).

.
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.

As GR already includes varying distances it wouldn't be different. As you have already been told this you can cut the BS about why you were thrown out. Oh and I ain't your "amigo".

Welcome to cranks list

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..?


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

Stop just projecting your own misinterpretations to others and start doing the math.

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.

Now who are you kidding? I was the one telling you all along that rulers must vary for the speed of light to be consistent. Dishonesty won't help you. Again stop pretending you are saving people and just do the math.

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

Again there is no "local transformation phenomena.." coordinate transformations only apply to some other reference frame. You are always at rest with your rulers and clocks as that is what defines them as your (that frame of references) rulers and clocks. Again even Galilean relativity, with absolute space and time, shows paths can depend on the frame of reference used. Again do the math and you may stop simply repeating the same assertions that have been specifically addressed before.

That rulers and distances vary does not mean "the curvature of space, is not true,". First off it is curved space time not just curved space. Second a curved path is longer than a flat path, so differences in distances not only don't preclude curvature they actually support it. Again do the math

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

It is time for you to start doing the math and you might learn the basics of relativity,

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..

Who is "MAN"? Again repeating out of context quotes won't help you. Projecting your perception onto others won't help you. Calling people other than their user names (or some other name they granted you permission to use) won't help you. Actuality doing the math might just help you, but I ain't holding my breath.

 

[halleyscomet]

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(sic), - is nothing but illegal rubbish. You have to relate, to this question.

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

You're trying to use ruler wankery to avoid the cold hard fact that Einstein's math WORKS. You can't use a thought experiment to discredit math that WORKS. You're going it BACKWARDS.

Here is a link to a recent translation of Einstein's 1915 “Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory”

The paper I just linked to is PART of what you're up against, NOT a thought experiment. Have you read it?

 

[The Man]

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

Again a ruler is just something of some distance, if rulers change then distances change.

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..

Again work out the paths of the bouncing ball on a train as seen from the person bouncing the ball and someone at the station just in Galilean relativity. Just work it out graphically to scale if you can't do the math. Again if you can't get past a basic aspect of relativity (changing relative paths) with fixed rulers and clocks you don't have a chance in SR and GR.

 

[The Man]

One thing I'm sure Bjarne doesn't understand is that an absolute reference frame depends upon absolute rulers and clocks.

 

[Bjarne]

Actually what you said before is that you were thrown out for insisting GR would be different with variant rulers (distances).

Stop this crap.. I was thrown out because I wanted a answer whether the ruler is a relativistic invariant or not

As GR already includes varying distances it wouldn't be different. As you have already been told this you can cut the BS about why you were thrown out. .

But nothing about whether these "varying distances" is measured with a relativistic invariant ruler , or a relativistic variant , and therefore coward science.

I was the one telling you all along that rulers must vary for the speed of light to be consistent. .

And exactly this statement is enough to judge you as a crank and therefore OK to throw you out of a scientific forum

Again there is no "local transformation phenomena.." coordinate transformations only apply to some other reference frame.

Off course there are local transformation phenomena, for example time dilation local at the 1st floor is not the same as local at the top of a skyscraper..

You are always at rest with your rulers and clocks as that is what defines them as your (that frame of references) rulers and clocks.

You will regret that statement when you soon will see SR test fails to prove exactly this.

That rulers and distances vary does not mean "the curvature of space, is not true,".

Tell me just 1 single prove for that , - curvature idea is true..

 

[halleyscomet]

Tell me just 1 single prove for that , - curvature idea is true..

The mathematical proofs are a bit more complicated than you seem to expect. If you want to see the math involved, start with the math behind Minkowski space. That of course is just a starting point.

Proving the curvature of space-time is not a high-school algebra class proof. It's the work of years.

 

[halleyscomet]

One thing I'm sure Bjarne doesn't understand is that an absolute reference frame depends upon absolute rulers and clocks.

And as I pointed out in my discussion of Smoot moving at relativistic speed, such absolutes do not apply.

 

[halleyscomet]

You will regret that statement when you soon will see SR test fails to prove exactly this.

You still on that kick? You need to do the MATH to and publish your research for that to happen.

Einstein's 1915 Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory," Have you read it? It demonstrates the level of math you need to get to in order to get your ideas taken seriously.

 

[The Man]

Stop this crap.. I was thrown out because I wanted a answer whether the ruler is a relativistic invariant or not

That's not what you said here so stop your own crap.

But nothing about whether these "varying distances" is measured with a relativistic invariant ruler , or a relativistic variant , and therefore coward science.

Relativity is quite clear on the matter so the only "coward" is one who doesn't actually refer to what it says, the math.

And exactly this statement is enough to judge you as a crank and therefore OK to throw you out of a scientific forum

Again that is not all you were saying. Again do the math and find out how they vary.

Off course there are local transformation phenomena, for example time dilation local at the 1st floor is not the same as local at the top of a skyscraper..

Again learn the math, the dilatation is only relative to some other frame. The coordinate transformations are just to, well, transform coordinate values from one frame to another. If you actually tried doing the math you might learn this. That you don't understand it just demonstrates you don't know what you are talking about and as a result you get throw out of some places.

You will regret that statement when you soon will see SR test fails to prove exactly this.

Again that is just how the clocks and rulers of a certain frame are defined. SR can't prove or disprove it, as it is simply a definition or axiom of that system. Again if you think you can disprove such a definition then you don't know what you are talking about and deserved to get thrown out of that other forum.

Tell me just 1 single prove for that , - curvature idea is true..

They've already been given. The angles of a triangle don't add up to 180 degrees and the parallel transport of a vector around a closed loop results in the vector not pointing in the same direction when the loop is complete. The latter being the GR contribution to the perihelion shift of Mercury. Why to you insist on things being repeatedly addressed?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Einstein's 1915 Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory," Have you read it? It demonstrates the level of math you need to get to in order to get your ideas taken seriously.

Just a warning: Vankov himself seems to have fallen for some crackpot ideas promulgated by Stephen J Crothers, as can be seen in the last paragraph of page 17.

It's easy to see that Vankov's equation (2.1) is formally the same as modern expressions for the Schwarzschild metric, using R where some modern expressions might use lower-case r. The name of that variable makes no difference by itself. In Schwartzschild's original formulation, R was related to a different lower-case r Vankov refers to as "the coordinate radial distance, not strictly determined but used as a measure of distance from the source". That "not strictly determined" means r has no inherent meaning; in particular, r=0 has no inherent meaning, so Vankov (following Crothers) makes a mistake by assuming r=0 corresponds to the point source. (Vankov also says "The original metric, as mentioned, does not diverge: R → α as r → 0." That's misleading because his equation (2.1) becomes a degenerate metric at R=α, which is another form of coordinate singularity that's just as bad as divergence.)

As we now know, Schwarzschild's r=0 corresponds to the event horizon. Equation (2.1) of Vankov's paper can be extended beneath the event horizon down to (but not including) the point source by allowing r to go negative, but even then there is a coordinate singularity at the event horizon. That extension is highly counter-intuitive and confusing, however, so I recommend using otherwise equivalent metrics (such as the Painlevé-Gullstrand metric) if you want to understand the spacetime manifold at and inside the event horizon of a black hole.

Coordinate singularities do not necessarily correspond to physical singularities. The coordinate singularity of equation (2.1) at the event horizon is not a physical singularity, and can be removed by simple transformations of coordinates (such as the transformation that yields the Painlevé-Gullstrand metric). The singularity at the point source is a real singularity at which the theory of relativity's equations truly break down.

For more on this, see my posts on the Mathematics of Black Hole Denialism, which were originally posted at this subforum.

 

[halleyscomet]

Just a warning: Vankov himself seems to have fallen for some crackpot ideas promulgated by Stephen J Crothers, as can be seen in the last paragraph of page 17.

It's easy to see that Vankov's equation (2.1) is formally the same as modern expressions for the Schwarzschild metric, using R where some modern expressions might use lower-case r. The name of that variable makes no difference by itself. In Schwartzschild's original formulation, R was related to a different lower-case r Vankov refers to as "the coordinate radial distance, not strictly determined but used as a measure of distance from the source". That "not strictly determined" means r has no inherent meaning; in particular, r=0 has no inherent meaning, so Vankov (following Crothers) makes a mistake by assuming r=0 corresponds to the point source. (Vankov also says "The original metric, as mentioned, does not diverge: R → α as r → 0." That's misleading because his equation (2.1) becomes a degenerate metric at R=α, which is another form of coordinate singularity that's just as bad as divergence.)

As we now know, Schwarzschild's r=0 corresponds to the event horizon. Equation (2.1) of Vankov's paper can be extended beneath the event horizon down to (but not including) the point source by allowing r to go negative, but even then there is a coordinate singularity at the event horizon. That extension is highly counter-intuitive and confusing, however, so I recommend using otherwise equivalent metrics (such as the Painlevé-Gullstrand metric) if you want to understand the spacetime manifold at and inside the event horizon of a black hole.

Coordinate singularities do not necessarily correspond to physical singularities. The coordinate singularity of equation (2.1) at the event horizon is not a physical singularity, and can be removed by simple transformations of coordinates (such as the transformation that yields the Painlevé-Gullstrand metric). The singularity at the point source is a real singularity at which the theory of relativity's equations truly break down.

For more on this, see my posts on the Mathematics of Black Hole Denialism, which were originally posted at this subforum.

Ah! The dangers of translation! It offers an insidious opportunity to add one's own views to the work of another. Thank you for the warning. Are you aware of an English language translation of the paper you consider more reliable?

Bjarne: Pay careful attention to W.D.Clinger's post and the sites linked to. Notice how the math and discussion of the equations comes FIRST, being the driving force of the discussion, NOT an afterthought left for others to tackle. Regardless of who is ultimately "right," you or W.D.Clinger, only Clinger is presenting an argument in a manner that can be assessed, evaluated and tested.

 

[Bjarne]

Ah! The dangers of translation! It offers an insidious opportunity to add one's own views to the work of another. Thank you for the warning. Are you aware of an English language translation of the paper you consider more reliable?

Bjarne: Pay careful attention to W.D.Clinger's post and the sites linked to. Notice how the math and discussion of the equations comes FIRST, being the driving force of the discussion, NOT an afterthought left for others to tackle. Regardless of who is ultimately "right," you or W.D.Clinger, only Clinger is presenting an argument in a manner that can be assessed, evaluated and tested.

OK Comrade
I was in the kindergarten tonight and have stolen a toy canon, the canon ball I already have ‘ This is all it takes.

So tomorrow the mathematical bombardment will start
You asked for trouble, - I will give you trouble..

 

[halleyscomet]

OK Comrade
I was in the kindergarten tonight and have stolen a toy gun, the canon ball I already have ‘ This is all it takes.

So tomorrow the mathematical bombardment will start
You asked for trouble, - I will give you trouble..

We all shiver with antici-

 

[Perpetual Student]

Sources of the precession of perihelion for Mercury
Amount (arcsec/Julian century) Cause
531.63 ±0.69[6] Gravitational tugs of the other planets
0.0254 Oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment)
42.98 ±0.04[7] General relativity
574.64±0.69 Total
574.10±0.65[6] Observed

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

This has no bearing on any observers frame of reference. All observers will experience the precession of the orbit of mercury.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Concerning
Explanation of the Perihelion Motion of Mercury from General Relativity Theory

Ah! The dangers of translation! It offers an insidious opportunity to add one's own views to the work of another. Thank you for the warning. Are you aware of an English language translation of the paper you consider more reliable?

No.

The translation is attributed to Roger A. Rydin. Checking only the equations against the original, I found these changes in addition to the noted corrections:

• The translation of equation (2) replaces square brackets by curly braces, which is a material error; those notations mean different things here.
• The first sentence of original paragraph labelled [7], which corresponds to the first sentence following equation (4b) in the translation, is corrected in the translation but is also poorly translated; I don't think this is a significant error.
• Curly braces are replaced by square brackets in the formulas preceding "whereby \alpha only runs from 1 to 3", which is a material error.
• The formula at the bottom of page 8 includes an extraneous parenthesis, which is a trivial typo.
• The table at the end inserts a double prime that doesn't appear to be in the original, but this was done to indicate the angular units are in seconds.

In short, I suspect the translation is more reliable than the commentary.

At the start of the paper, Varkov lists his affiliations as the Institute of Physics and Power Engineering in Obninsk, Russia, which does research in nuclear power, and Bethany College in Lindsborg, Kansas, which has an enrollment of 607 students according to Wikipedia. It looks as though he is now a professor at Rochester Institute of Technology.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
So tomorrow the mathematical copy/paste bombardment will start
...

^{Hilited added by Daylightstar}

ftfy

 

[Bjarne]

http://science27.com/forum/mercurian.jpg

Edited by zooterkin: 

Edited for rule 5.
Do not hotlink to sites which do not explicitly permit it.

 

[The Man]

Well, first off your first value would be negative for the equation given. Where do you get your (R0=2951) value? Where did you get your purported transformation equations?

How come your calculation doesn't check? Some 7.7 km or about 20% off.

 

[Bjarne]

Where do you get your (R0=2951) value?

r0 = 2GM / c2

Where did you get your purported transformation equations?

Simple Lorentz transformation

How come your calculation doesn't check? Some 7.7 km or about 20% off

It’s only a estimation
Due to the stronger gravity as expected the trajectory would no longer be in a free fall geodesic, - the consequence is a beast to calculate and will not be done yet.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Well, first off your first value would be negative for the equation given. Where do you get your (R0=2951) value? Where did you get your purported transformation equations?

How come your calculation doesn't check? Some 7.7 km or about 20% off.

You're giving him too much credit. Eleven of the 28 non-blank lines in his first table contain results that are incorrect or pulled out of thin air without justification. Using indexes that count only the non-blank rows:

row 1: result has wrong sign; "equation" comes out of thin air anyway
row 3: result disagrees with "equation"
row 4: result disagrees with "equation"
rows 8 and 9: "equation" and its numbers come out of thin air
row 11: result has wrong sign
row 13: result copied from incorrect result for row 4 without justification
row 14: result pulled out of thin air without any "equation"
row 20: result has wrong sign
row 21: result disagrees with "equation"
row 22: result disagrees with "equation" because "equation" is wrong

In the second table, the equation for row 4 is wrong, but that's just a typo.

It’s only a estimation
Due to the stronger gravity as expected the trajectory would no longer be in a free fall geodesic, - the consequence is a beast to calculate and will not be done yet.

So far, you've been offering evidence that Bjarne's Theory of Relativity will fall apart in 2016/2017.