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

[The Man]

r0 = 2GM / c2

I take it the "c2" is suppose to be c²? In that case it would be the Schwarzschild radius but of what and why?

Simple Lorentz transformation

I didn't ask you what you thought it was but where you got it. So again where did you get it? It certainly doesn't appear to be a "Lorentz transformation" simple or otherwise. Again why does it result in a negative value but you have a positive value?

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.

Did you consider that you might get a closer "estimation" by just putting numbers on a dartboard and throwing darts at them? It would also free you of the conundrum of you apparently claiming your orbit "estimation" isn't an orbit (free fall) just becouse of "stronger gravity". Word salad won't help you as others can know what those words mean.

 

[Bjarne]

I take it the "c2" is suppose to be c²? In that case it would be the Schwarzschild radius but of what and why?

Ahh I forgot, I just separate the equation in 2, so that it was faster to use. Check the result these are Ok

Multiply the time as measured by a distant observer by sqrt(1-(2GM/Rc^2)). This is independent of any velocity induced dilation

I didn't ask you what you thought it was but where you got it. So again where did you get it? It certainly doesn't appear to be a "Lorentz transformation" simple or otherwise. Again why does it result in a negative value but you have a positive value?

Can you be more specific

Did you consider that you might get a closer "estimation" by just putting numbers on a dartboard and throwing darts at them? It would also free you of the conundrum of you apparently claiming your orbit "estimation" isn't an orbit (free fall) just becouse of "stronger gravity". Word salad won't help you as others can know what those words mean.

Make you own calculation and you will also easy be able to estimate that relativistic shorter radius distance to Mercury is enough to understand the cause of the perihelion anomaly

 

[The Man]

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.

Naw, I started checking some of the numbers to the values and equations given but decided to just focus on the first for now as that, as you say, just comes out of thin air with the (R0) value and then has the wrong sign. I figured since the end appeared to be some kind of check I'd query why even his own check tells him he's wrong.

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

Evidently, but even that is giving too much credit as "will fall apart" presumes it was actually together at some time.

 

[The Man]

Ahh I forgot, I just separate the equation in 2, so that it was faster to use. Check the result these are Ok

Multiply the time as measured by a distant observer by sqrt(1-(2GM/Rc^2)). This is independent of any velocity induced dilation

Uhm, nope, as 2GM/R and c^2 are both speeds squared it explicitly isn't "independent of any velocity".

Can you be more specific

Not really, where did you get it is pretty specific. Though it seems it just came out of your arse.

Make you own calculation and you will also easy be able to estimate that relativistic shorter radius distance to Mercury is enough to understand the cause of the perihelion anomaly

Nope, it is incumbent on no one to do your work for you.


ETA: I should also point out that your 2GM/R speed squared is nonphysical as your are multiplying the gravitational acceleration by the radius. Evidently just to get the units to work out.

 

[Daylightstar]

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

Edited by zooterkin: 

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

This is not providing the math for a theory, none of this appears to mean anything.
Was it really your intention to subject your own idea to such a nonsense bombardment?

May I suggest you focus whatever attention you may have on clay pottery instead of crackpottery?

 

[The Man]

ETA: I should also point out that your 2GM/R speed squared is nonphysical as your are multiplying the gravitational acceleration by the radius. Evidently just to get the units to work out.

Oops my mistake here, just GM/R would approximate orbital speed squared. However, that is a tangential speed and thus isn't radially directed (it is the speed perpendicular to the radius).

ETA: looks like its taken from the gravitational time dilatation derived from the Schwarzschild metric. However, the -1 tacked on at the end is still a mystery.

ETA2: Looks like that is just for a clock at rest in the field. For and orbiting clock it would be...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#Circular_orbits

 

[Bjarne]

This is not providing the math for a theory, none of this appears to mean anything.
Was it really your intention to subject your own idea to such a nonsense bombardment?

May I suggest you focus whatever attention you may have on clay pottery instead of crackpottery?

I believe I told you even kindergarten math is enough to shake GR

The fact is that it doesn’t matter how bad the math really is , even a very lazy attempt, - is enough to demonstrate the cause of 80% of the perihelion anomaly.

Off course I can improve the math, - but it will only change the “beauty” … the result will be the same 80%.

The remaining 20% is a due to change of the free fall geodesic path, - which in fact is rocket science.

The distance contraction / extension allows 2 mathematical solution..

Either

1. The ruler is an invariant and therefor the path must change
2. Or the ruler is a variant, and the curvature of space is not necessary.

There is no evidence for option 1 is true, but this is the option that is chosen in the holy book.’

If anyone insist that option 2 is an better option and even the most logical, - that is enough to throw out such person from the scientific community..
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-speed-of-light-always-299-792-458-m-s.655380/

So now the world desperate need a good unspoiled rocket scientist, - to mathematical test, whether it really is true that also the remaining 20% also can be fixed...and therefore - whether it really could be true, - that the whole world is victim for a collective mass indoctrinated distorted worldview..

But unfortunately I believe it will be difficult to find such scientist willing to cooperate.

Maybe all are 100% successful indoctrinated to believe that ONLY and I repeat ONLY option 1 MUST be true.

No no no, it is not only about my theory, it’s about whether GR in reality is a disgrace to the Human race.

Amen

 

[Perpetual Student]

Bjarne:

This is the equation you claim is wrong:

R_μν - (1/2)g_μνR = (8πG/c⁴)T_μν

Please provide the necessary correction(s).

 

[dasmiller]

The distance contraction / extension allows 2 mathematical solution..

Either

1. The ruler is an invariant and therefor the path must change
2. Or the ruler is a variant, and the curvature of space is not necessary.

When you say the ruler is variant or invariant . . . compared to what? Compared to another ruler in the same place? Compared to another ruler that's somewhere else?

 

[halleyscomet]

I believe I told you even kindergarten math is enough to shake GR

The fact is that it doesn’t matter how bad the math really is , even a very lazy attempt, - is enough to demonstrate the cause of 80% of the perihelion anomaly.

Kid, have you looked at Newton's equations for the orbit of Mercury?

They're WAAAY beyond kindergarten.

Where did you get the delusion that you know what you're taking about?

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne:

This is the equation you claim is wrong:

R_μν - (1/2)g_μνR = (8πG/c⁴)T_μν

Please provide the necessary correction(s).

It not necessary to provide any correction to something that is not necessary
Much more shows that space is stretching rather than curving...

 

[Bjarne]

When you say the ruler is variant or invariant . . . compared to what? Compared to another ruler in the same place? Compared to another ruler that's somewhere else?

Compared to another ruler that's somewhere else, and effected different by gravity or speed.

 

[dasmiller]

Compared to another ruler that's somewhere else, and effected different by gravity or speed.

And how would you compare such a ruler?

 

[Bjarne]

Kid, have you looked at Newton's equations for the orbit of Mercury?

They're WAAAY beyond kindergarten.

Where did you get the delusion that you know what you're taking about?

.
Newton's equations have never even tried to solve the precession anomaly

 

[Bjarne]

And how would you compare such a ruler?

By simple (mathematical) thought experiments.

 

[The Man]

I believe I told you even kindergarten math is enough to shake GR

Shake GR, what the heck are you talking about? Your very first value (your R0) is a result of the Schwarzschild metric. You ain't shaking GR your trying to stand on it.

The fact is that it doesn’t matter how bad the math really is , even a very lazy attempt, - is enough to demonstrate the cause of 80% of the perihelion anomaly.

Actually it does matter, your using time dilation at rest in the field as opposed to in orbit. Using the Schwarzschild metric when the Kerr metric might be more applicable (the sun does rotate). You sick in a -1 for no apparent reason and then even reverse the sign on the result and that's all just your first calculation. Even you don't follow your own math, that's how bad it is, and even then you're still wrong.

Off course I can improve the math, - but it will only change the “beauty” … the result will be the same 80%.

The remaining 20% is a due to change of the free fall geodesic path, - which in fact is rocket science.

The distance contraction / extension allows 2 mathematical solution..

Either

1. The ruler is an invariant and therefor the path must change

No, fixed rulers and clocks neither necessitate a path "must change" nor preclude it, your latter assertion doesn't follow from your former.

• Or the ruler is a variant, and the curvature of space is not necessary.

Again the varying of rulers and clocks doesn't preclude the curvature of space time. So again your latter assertion doesn't follow from your former.


Not only is your dichotomy false neither of your options are even remotely accurate as you have been informed before. Why do you insist on repeating false assertions already addressed?

There is no evidence for option 1 is true, but this is the option that is chosen in the holy book.’

Again fixed rulers and clocks are a requirement of your assertion of some absolute frame of reference. You're the only one who has "chosen" that.

If anyone insist that option 2 is an better option and even the most logical, - that is enough to throw out such person from the scientific community..
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-speed-of-light-always-299-792-458-m-s.655380/

Your "option 2" is just non-sequitur crap like your "option 1", your subsequent assertion doesn't follow from your previous. As such you deserved what you got on that forum.

So now the world desperate need a good unspoiled rocket scientist, - to mathematical test, whether it really is true that also the remaining 20% also can be fixed...and therefore - whether it really could be true, - that the whole world is victim for a collective mass indoctrinated distorted worldview..

Nope, again you need to do your own work, which would include actually following your own equations and the results they give.

But unfortunately I believe it will be difficult to find such scientist willing to cooperate.

Well the first step would be for you to "cooperate" with just yourself by actually using your own equations. By all means let us know what happens to your purported 80% when your first calculation results in a negative value.

Maybe all are 100% successful indoctrinated to believe that ONLY and I repeat ONLY option 1 MUST be true.

Well, as your the only one here who believes either of your options to be correct you've only "indoctrinated" yourself.

No no no, it is not only about my theory, it’s about whether GR in reality is a disgrace to the Human race.

Amen

Again your assertion of "GR in reality is a disgrace to the Human race" might actually carry any relavance if your very first value (a Schwarzschild radius) didn't depend upon, well, not only GR but black holes, which you also apparently just don't like.

By all means please get back to us when you work out the problems with your equations at least to the point where you actually use the results of your equations.

 

[dasmiller]

By simple (mathematical) thought experiments.

I genuinely don't understand what you mean by invariant, then. I can understand what it means for a ruler to appear to be shorter or longer when looking from a different reference frame, but I don't know what it means to say that it really is shorter or longer. And since I don't know what it means, it's hard for me to conceive of a thought experiment that would demonstrate it.

Also, if it's strictly thought experiments, does that mean there can be no objective evidence?

 

[Perpetual Student]

It not necessary to provide any correction to something that is not necessary
Much more shows that space is stretching rather than curving...

Streching how? Due to the presence of mass, velocity, something else? Show the equations that model this "stretching."

 

[Daylightstar]

...
The fact is that it doesn’t matter how bad the math really is , even a very lazy attempt, - is enough to demonstrate the cause of 80% of the perihelion anomaly.
...

You haven't mathematically demonstrated any validity for your ideas at all.

...
Off course I can improve the math, - but it will only change the “beauty” … the result will be the same 80%.
...

You could not improve any math, you can't even do basic math.

...
So now the world desperate need a good unspoiled rocket scientist, - to mathematical test, whether it really is true that also the remaining 20% also can be fixed...and therefore - whether it really could be true, - that the whole world is victim for a collective mass indoctrinated distorted worldview..

But unfortunately I believe it will be difficult to find such scientist willing to cooperate.
...

You haven't demonstrated the need for such a rocket scientist as you have not demonstrated the need for any of your claims to be tested.

You claimed you would provide a mathematical bombardment, then you demonstrated that you are utterly incapable of doing so but now you need a rocket scientist to do 'this'.
You made your claim under false pretenses. What you really appear to need is a rocket psychiatrist.

...
No no no, it is not only about my theory, it’s about whether GR in reality is a disgrace to the Human race.

Amen

In reality, it is not even about any theory ......

 

[Bjarne]

Streching how? Due to the presence of mass, velocity, something else? Show the equations that model this "stretching."

Its simple everything is stretching proportional with time, also matter, and rulers.