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

[Daylightstar]

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

This is what Bjarne means with all the math already having been done, that all the mathematical treatments simply show his irrational conclusion to be correct.

He can't show why, though

 

[Bjarne]

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

‘A’ live in the basement of a skyscraper, ‘B’ at the top of the same building.
Both have measured the time it took a photon to travel 13 billion. from the very first star and to us..
But A’s clock (deeper in the gravitational field) is as we know ticking slower than B’s clock.

B would argue that it took the photon one minute longer to reach us – than the time A has measured. Simply because B’s clock is ticking faster than the A’s watch. The difference is probably in reality less, but it means nothing , its the same point.

We accept that the speed “c” is the same for both A and B.
When both A and B know the time and speed, A and B can only conclude that either the distance to the star that emitted photon is significantly different, which is utopian, because the universe is not likely to change shape depending on the observer who observes a process.

Otherwise, the conclusion can only be that A’s ruler (in the basement) must have changed (been longer) proportional to the time also been stretching, as a result of A’s watch is deeper in the gravitational field.

Only in this way A and B both can assert that ‘c’ is the same for both (even thou ‘c’ is not comparable the ‘same’..

 

[Daylightstar]

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

‘A’ live in the basement of a skyscraper, ‘B’ at the top of the same building.
Both have measured the time it took a photon to travel 13 billion. from the very first star and to us..
But A’s clock (deeper in the gravitational field) is as we know ticking slower than B’s clock.

B would argue that it took the photon one minute longer to reach us – than the time A has measured. Simply because B’s clock is ticking faster than the A’s watch. The difference is probably in reality less, but it means nothing , its the same point.

We accept that the speed “c” is the same for both A and B.
When both A and B know the time and speed, A and B can only conclude that either the distance to the star that emitted photon is significantly different, which is utopian, because the universe is not likely to change shape depending on the observer who observes a process.

Otherwise, the conclusion can only be that A’s ruler (in the basement) must have changed (been longer) proportional to the time also been stretching, as a result of A’s watch is deeper in the gravitational field.

Only in this way A and B both can assert that ‘c’ is the same for both (even thou ‘c’ is not comparable the ‘same’..

No equations, instead show a multicolored wall o' text

 

[The Man]

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

Which proportion would that be the negative one that resulted from your first equation or the positive one you just used instead? Again please get back to us when you can at least agree with just yourself.

So now space is "stretching" and thus expanding?

You should probably also note that an observer with appropriate escape velocity to be free of the gravitational field would also be seen to have the same dilated time as and by an observer stationary in the field at a potential that would require that escape velocity.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravi...rtant_features_of_gravitational_time_dilation

See the last point, though the others are still relevant to your claims.

 

[The Man]

Only in this way A and B both can assert that ‘c’ is the same for both (even thou ‘c’ is not comparable the ‘same’..

Once again if you claim " ‘c’ is not comparable the ‘same’.." then you simply assert you have no basis to "assert that ‘c’ is the same for both" even just by your own regard. Again by all means please get back to us when you can at least agree with just yourself.

 

[halleyscomet]

.

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

Are you honestly under the impression that Newton's laws of gravity have never been applied to Mercury?

Are you really that unaware of a 200 year slab of research around the orbit of Mercury that stemmed from Newton's inability to properly account for its orbit?

That's not quite as bad as someone claiming to have cured AIDS while being completely ignorant of germ theory, but it's close.

 

[halleyscomet]

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?

Oh I don't think anyone expected any actual math that built towards theory. The way he phrased his promise to provide math made it clear his intention was not to build a theory, but to try and drown us in a Gish Gallup of equations that are vaguely related to physics.

We're talking about a person who actually claimed Newton's laws of gravity had never been applied to the orbit of mercury and who thinks kindergarten level math is enough to debunk Einstein's equations regarding the orbit of mercury. This is not someone who has even a remedial comprehension of the mathematics involved. I doubt he even skimmed the copy of Einstein's 1915 paper about the orbit of mercury when I linked to it. He claims he can overthrow its claims yet I can all but guarantee he's never even read it.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

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...

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.

Note also that the Schwarzschild metric to which Bjarne appeals as justification for a constant in the very first row of his calculation was obtained as a solution to the equations Bjarne is dismissing as "not necessary", so that solution already assumes the curvature of spacetime as expressed by those equations.

In short, Bjarne is contradicting himself before we've gotten past the first row of his calculation.

Using the Schwarzschild metric when the Kerr metric might be more applicable (the sun does rotate).

The Schwarzschild metric should be good enough. Historically, it was the only available basis for relativistic calculations of the perihelion's precession until Kerr came up with the exact solution for rotating stars in 1963. (I'm counting Einstein's approximate calculation as using the Schwarzschild metric because it motivated Schwarzschild's exact solution, and Einstein's approximation can be back-derived from Schwarzschild's exact solution.)

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.

Although extensions of the Schwarschild solution do indeed predict black holes, the Schwarzschild solution was originally intended to model spacetime in the vicinity of an ordinary isolated star, and that's why it's relevant here. The Schwarzschild radius doesn't depend upon black holes; it just so happens to coincide with a black hole's event horizon when the point mass whose gravitational field is being modelled happens to be a black hole instead of an ordinary star. With ordinary stars such as the sun, the Schwarzschild radius lies within the star, where Schwarzschild's interior solution would be used instead of his more familiar exterior solution.

 

[halleyscomet]

Note also that the Schwarzschild metric to which Bjarne appeals as justification for a constant in the very first row of his calculation was obtained as a solution to the equations Bjarne is dismissing as "not necessary", so that solution already assumes the curvature of spacetime as expressed by those equations.



In short, Bjarne is contradicting himself before we've gotten past the first row of his calculation.





The Schwarzschild metric should be good enough. Historically, it was the only available basis for relativistic calculations of the perihelion's precession until Kerr came up with the exact solution for rotating stars in 1963. (I'm counting Einstein's approximate calculation as using the Schwarzschild metric because it motivated Schwarzschild's exact solution, and Einstein's approximation can be back-derived from Schwarzschild's exact solution.)





Although extensions of the Schwarschild solution do indeed predict black holes, the Schwarzschild solution was originally intended to model spacetime in the vicinity of an ordinary isolated star, and that's why it's relevant here. The Schwarzschild radius doesn't depend upon black holes; it just so happens to coincide with a black hole's event horizon when the point mass whose gravitational field is being modelled happens to be a black hole instead of an ordinary star. With ordinary stars such as the sun, the Schwarzschild radius lies within the star, where Schwarzschild's interior solution would be used instead of his more familiar exterior solution.

Personally, I'm not surprised Bjarne posted equations that rely upon his conclusions being false. I do not expect future math posts by him to be illuminating in anyway or to be supportive of his theories. He is openly dismissive of the importance of mathematics in physics. He keeps insisting advanced calculus can be undone with kindergarten math. He denies Newton's laws of gravitation were ever used to evaluate the orbit of Mercury. Bjarne is never going to post equations that support his Science denial. He is going to fling equations at us the way a chimpanzee flings poo when threatened.

I do not believe his equations are a sincere effort to support his claims but an attempt to punish us for not believing him by overwhelming us with randomly chosen equations. Personally, I think the glut of equations he's presenting is reflective of how he perceives the mathematics used by Einstein. We are going to be get a wall of distraction; I think that's how he sees math as used by physicists in general and Einstein in particular.

 

[The Man]

Note also that the Schwarzschild metric to which Bjarne appeals as justification for a constant in the very first row of his calculation was obtained as a solution to the equations Bjarne is dismissing as "not necessary", so that solution already assumes the curvature of spacetime as expressed by those equations.

In short, Bjarne is contradicting himself before we've gotten past the first row of his calculation.

Just contradicting himself basically sums up all Bjarne's assertions.

The Schwarzschild metric should be good enough. Historically, it was the only available basis for relativistic calculations of the perihelion's precession until Kerr came up with the exact solution for rotating stars in 1963. (I'm counting Einstein's approximate calculation as using the Schwarzschild metric because it motivated Schwarzschild's exact solution, and Einstein's approximation can be back-derived from Schwarzschild's exact solution.)

Yeah I figured the Schwarzschild metric should be good enough but just figured I'd bring up the rotation aspect. Speaking of which, what about the difference between the stationary in the field dilation vs the orbit dilation formulas?

Although extensions of the Schwarschild solution do indeed predict black holes, the Schwarzschild solution was originally intended to model spacetime in the vicinity of an ordinary isolated star, and that's why it's relevant here. The Schwarzschild radius doesn't depend upon black holes; it just so happens to coincide with a black hole's event horizon when the point mass whose gravitational field is being modelled happens to be a black hole instead of an ordinary star. With ordinary stars such as the sun, the Schwarzschild radius lies within the star, where Schwarzschild's interior solution would be used instead of his more familiar exterior solution.

Well, I was being facetious there but still thank you for the correction.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Speaking of which, what about the difference between the stationary in the field dilation vs the orbit dilation formulas?

I am not familiar with the concepts you mention. I know what the words "stationary", "field", and "dilation" mean in this context, but my Google search on "stationary in the field dilation" yielded no results, my Google search on "orbit dilation formula" yielded no results, and my Google search on "relativity"+"orbit dilation" yielded only eight results, which seemed to direct me toward marginal literature, of which Bjarne's ideas are an extreme example.

 

[MRC_Hans]

‘A’ live in the basement of a skyscraper, ‘B’ at the top of the same building.
Both have measured the time it took a photon to travel 13 billion. from the very first star and to us..
But A’s clock (deeper in the gravitational field) is as we know ticking slower than B’s clock.

B would argue that it took the photon one minute longer to reach us – than the time A has measured. Simply because B’s clock is ticking faster than the A’s watch. The difference is probably in reality less, but it means nothing , its the same point.

We accept that the speed “c” is the same for both A and B.
When both A and B know the time and speed, A and B can only conclude that either the distance to the star that emitted photon is significantly different, which is utopian, because the universe is not likely to change shape depending on the observer who observes a process.

Otherwise, the conclusion can only be that A’s ruler (in the basement) must have changed (been longer) proportional to the time also been stretching, as a result of A’s watch is deeper in the gravitational field.

Only in this way A and B both can assert that ‘c’ is the same for both (even thou ‘c’ is not comparable the ‘same’..

No. A and B both get correct results, each based on their relative position in spacetime. IF they want to understand the other's result, all they need is to do the math re. GR.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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/

Ah, thanks, Bjarne. That looks like a nice forum. I'll bookmark it.

Hans

 

[The Man]

I am not familiar with the concepts you mention. I know what the words "stationary", "field", and "dilation" mean in this context, but my Google search on "stationary in the field dilation" yielded no results, my Google search on "orbit dilation formula" yielded no results, and my Google search on "relativity"+"orbit dilation" yielded only eight results, which seemed to direct me toward marginal literature, of which Bjarne's ideas are an extreme example.

Sorry, I posted the link before.

Clock at rest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#Outside_a_non-rotating_sphere

Clock in orbit.

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

 

[The Man]

No. A and B both get correct results, each based on their relative position in spacetime. IF they want to understand the other's result, all they need is to do the math re. GR.

Hans

Still basically what seems to be one of Bjarne's confusions. For him the coordinate transformations seem to have some "local" significance. As opposed to simply being a way to change your coordinate values for some events into the coordinate values of some other frame of reference for those same events.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Sorry, I posted the link before.

Clock at rest

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation#Outside_a_non-rotating_sphere

Clock in orbit.

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

In the "clock at rest" case, t_f is expressed using the coordinate time of an observer "at infinity", meaning so far away the gravitational field is negligible and the observer can consider itself at rest and at a constant distance from the gravitational source for all time ("stationary").

In the "clock in orbit" equation, t_f appears to mean the coordinate time of an observer in that orbit who considers itself to be in free fall (at rest). These are two rather different coordinate patches (charts), so their measures of coordinate time will differ.

Time is not a relativistic invariant any more than length is.

If I were concerned about this, I would work the equations out for myself instead of trusting Wikipedia. As it is, I don't see an issue.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Originally Posted by Bjarne
‘A’ live in the basement of a skyscraper, ‘B’ at the top of the same building.
Both have measured the time it took a photon to travel 13 billion. from the very first star and to us..
But A’s clock (deeper in the gravitational field) is as we know ticking slower than B’s clock.

B would argue that it took the photon one minute longer to reach us – than the time A has measured. Simply because B’s clock is ticking faster than the A’s watch. The difference is probably in reality less, but it means nothing , its the same point.

We accept that the speed “c” is the same for both A and B.
When both A and B know the time and speed, A and B can only conclude that either the distance to the star that emitted photon is significantly different, which is utopian, because the universe is not likely to change shape depending on the observer who observes a process.

Otherwise, the conclusion can only be that A’s ruler (in the basement) must have changed (been longer) proportional to the time also been stretching, as a result of A’s watch is deeper in the gravitational field.

Only in this way A and B both can assert that ‘c’ is the same for both (even thou ‘c’ is not comparable the ‘same’..

No. A and B both get correct results, each based on their relative position in spacetime. IF they want to understand the other's result, all they need is to do the math re. GR.

Hans

This is the point, Bjarne. GR models the correct results for the two observers. Do you have a mathematical model for your stretching notion? If so, how does it differ in predicting the results seen by A and B? If there is no difference, what is the value of your notion?

 

[Bjarne]

No. A and B both get correct results, each based on their relative position in spacetime. IF they want to understand the other's result, all they need is to do the math re. GR.

Hans

The only objective result they get is measured time.

Base on "c" is known to be the “same” both can calculate the distance

And as you can see the universe must be insane schizophrenic, since they (A and B) calculated two different distance, - one and the same photon have traveled..

The official explanation is that the photon followed a different part, - so the photon too has become schizophrenic, because it must have followed a long and short parh at the same time. And the Universe is schizophrenic too.

Logic, Yeehhhh offf coursse,, very very insane logic

I cannot convince you, that’s fine, - I am sure even after the predicted ISS anomaly is a fact, everyone here, and the world will just add the mystery to the list (exactly like the flyby anomalies) – or sweep it under the blanked (exactly like the pioneer anomalies) like nothing had happen..

The old saying will always be true; - the world wants to be deceived

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck

 

[halleyscomet]

The only objective result they get is measured time.

Base on "c" is known to be the “same” both can calculate the distance

And as you can see the universe must be insane schizophrenic, since they (A and B) calculated two different distance, - one and the same photon have traveled..

The official explanation is that the photon followed a different part, - so the photon too has become schizophrenic, because it must have followed a long and short part at the same time. And the Universe is schizophrenic too.

Logic, Yeehhhh offf coursse,, very very insane logic

I cannot convince you, that’s fine, - I am sure even after the predicted ISS anomaly is a fact, everyone here, and the world will just add the mystery to the list (exactly like the flyby anomalies) – or sweep it under the blanked (exactly like the pioneer anomalies) like nothing had happen..

The old saying will always be true; - the world wants to be deceived

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck

You Kinda have to have a few acolytes in the younger generation for that to work for you. If you're the only person who believes the theory, when you die, the theory will probably die with you. Given how many people there are spewing nonsensical crackpot theories, the odds of anyone going back and reviewing your theories after you're a pile of rancid worm food is somewhere between "nil" and "winning the lottery is more likely."

 

[Bjarne]

This is the point, Bjarne. GR models the correct results for the two observers. Do you have a mathematical model for your stretching notion? If so, how does it differ in predicting the results seen by A and B? If there is no difference, what is the value of your notion?

Yes excactly like a schizophrenic insane, the one half of the person (Napoleon) and the other half of the person (Frankestien) will never agree, but this is not important in now a days schizophrenic science.