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

[MRC_Hans]

The only objective result they get is measured time.

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

c is the same in all reference frames. In effect, that is your changing ruler, if you must have one.

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..

In their different reference frames, it will be different. Perhaps hard to grasp, but nevertheless fact.

I cannot convince you, that’s fine,

If you had any evidence, you might. As it is, no.


Hans

 

[halleyscomet]

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.

Well you've convinced me. Einstein's theory of relativity is a lie. This means GPS systems can't possibly work. Since GPS systems cannot work in any of the meandering mangling of physics fan fiction you've cobbled together how then does my phone give me directions?

I'm serious. If relativity is a lie there is some big conspiracy to fake GPS systems. How are they doing it?

 

[Bjarne]

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.
.

So you still do not understand the difference between curved space and stretched space.

 

[Bjarne]

c is the same in all reference frames.

But not comparable the same

In their different reference frames, it will be different. Perhaps hard to grasp, but nevertheless fact.

Only because the ruler is a variant

 

[MRC_Hans]

So you still do not understand the difference between curved space and stretched space.

AH, that one is easy:



Curved space: Verified fact.

Stretched space: Unverified fantasy.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

But not comparable the same

Yes, quite comparably, if you can do the math,

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Well you've convinced me. Einstein's theory of relativity is a lie. This means GPS systems can't possibly work. Since GPS systems cannot work in any of the meandering mangling of physics fan fiction you've cobbled together how then does my phone give me directions?

I'm serious. If relativity is a lie there is some big conspiracy to fake GPS systems. How are they doing it?

It’s not "a lie" but half-truth and half misunderstood.
The point is that stretching space was misunderstood and became curvature of space.
The consequences is that some conclusion are the same for both options, , and some wrong

 

[Bjarne]

Yes, quite comparably, if you can do the math,

Hans

Its as I wrote kindergarten math, - time multiplied with c = distance
How differcul can it be ?

 

[Bjarne]

AH, that one is easy:
Curved space: Verified fact.

You mean

• No evidence
• Conflict with quantum physic
• Conflict with science (black holes)
• NASA employéer, - no gravitational lensing observed

Stretched space: Unverified fantasy.

• No conflict of any kind
• The key to understand the nature of so called dark energy
• The key to understand mass / space connection.
• The key to predict the result of ISS GR-test
• and much much more..

 

[halleyscomet]

So you still do not understand the difference between curved space and stretched space.

It's not a matter of understanding. The simple fact of the matter is you have not provided a mathematical description of the difference. Yammering out analogies is not the same thing as providing the cold hard math to calculate the differences.

 

[halleyscomet]

You mean

• No evidence
  
• Conflict with quantum physic
  
• Conflict with science (black holes)
  
• NASA employéer, - no gravitational lensing observed
  

• No conflict of any kind
  
• The key to understand the nature of so called dark energy
  
• The key to understand mass / space connection.
  
• The key to predict the result of ISS GR-test
  
• and much much more..
  

Without the math to explain how your theory is actually different than relativity your post is just meaningless drivel.

You keep spewing analogies without providing the math needed to test your ideas.

 

[Bjarne]

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.

I never hear about that anyone else as Einstein suggested a solution

 

[The Man]

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").

It also remarks further down to the time ticked out on the surface of say the Earth. Indicating t₀ would be such a time in a frame at rest on that surface or perhaps held at some height above the surface.

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.

Right so that would be the one to use for an orbiting body like say Mercury.

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

I don't recall anyone here claiming otherwise.

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.

Not a concern, just that it seem to me Bjarne isn't even using the right gravitational time dilation equation to start with. Particularly since he's trying to apply it to an orbiting body.

 

[halleyscomet]

Its as I wrote kindergarten math, - time multiplied with c = distance
How differcul can it be ?

Have you read Einstein's 1915 paper on the orbit of Mercury?

 

[halleyscomet]

It’s not "a lie" but half-truth and half misunderstood.

The point is that stretching space was misunderstood and became curvature of space.

The consequences is that some conclusion are the same for both options, , and some wrong

Then show is the math to prove it.

Oh, wait, you tried and all we got was a spreadsheet of mangled equations you appear to have selected at random.

 

[Bjarne]

Without the math to explain how your theory is actually different than relativity your post is just meaningless drivel.

You keep spewing analogies without providing the math needed to test your ideas.

The very first step is only to keep the possibility open, what if space is stretching, not curving. Anyone can calculate (so good they can) - the fact is it cannot be denied this have huge consequences for our worldview..

 

[Bjarne]

Have you read Einstein's 1915 paper on the orbit of Mercury?

Not his paper but a lot of other stuff

 

[The Man]

Its as I wrote kindergarten math, - time multiplied with c = distance
How differcul can it be ?

So do the math, what distance do you get with a clock that ticks out less time?





Hint: the answer is in the question.

 

[halleyscomet]

The very first step is only to keep the possibility open, what if space is stretching, not curving. Anyone can calculate (so good they can) - the fact is it cannot be denied this have huge consequences for our worldview..

If the math is that simple show it to us.

 

[halleyscomet]

Not his paper but a lot of other stuff

Seriously?

What HAVE you read of his?