• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Daylightstar said:
No, it's explicitly not a process. It is just self-contradictory beliefs and ideas morphing baselesly into other self-contradictory beliefs and ideas.

No actual process can be observed in your self-contradictory morphs.
In fact, it appears nearly random.
Click to expand...

The 2 biggest theories , - relativity and quantum physic , contradicts each other dear, it is no longer the case with my theory..
 
Bjarne said:
.

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



Were he still alive, Urbain Le Verrier would no doubt like to point out that's a bald faced lie and being a hot headed, proud, Frenchman, no doubt challenge you to a duel to the death to satisfy your outrageous slander against him.

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

Then the French government would sue your estate for damages, having spent a LOT of money on Le Verrier's research and having justifiable national pride in his accomplishments.

Have you done ANY research into the physics you're so convinced you can debunk with kindergarten math?
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
Read my post. I did not ask for a youtube video to be regurgitated, I asked for you to state your understanding.
Click to expand...

Stating what he believes would require effort, and expose him to ridicule when the massive gaps in his understanding are revealed.
 
Bjarne said:
Notice that length contractions not is a consequence of SR or GR, it is a consequence of the Lorentz equation
Length contraction was known in the late 1800.
Click to expand...

I'm quite familiar with the history of that transformation. It actually wasn't in its current form until the French mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré in 1905. He just named it after Lorentz.

Bjarne said:
So Einstein begun to speculate and constructed a theory based on the already known mysterious Lorenz Equations, .
The fact is that the so called "curvature of space" aspect is never proven to be correct,. It was and is still nothing but speculation. – I am not saying this to provoke anybody, but only because this is a fact.
Click to expand...

Don't suppose your speculations for that of Einstein and the proof of curved space-time is in the successful application of the mathematical models.

Bjarne said:
The curvature of space concept is only an attempt to try to solve mysterious consequences of Lorentz equation. Nothing more than this
Click to expand...

You are confused the Lorentz equation is linear, the space-time that results (Minkowski space) is not curved.

Bjarne said:
I think you are unaware of the fact that time dilation also already was a consequence of the Lorenz equation, even before the theory of relativity.
Click to expand...

Evidently you are just unaware of the difference between SR and GR.


Bjarne said:
Einstein believed his speculation could explain what really happen – in the real world – to achieve that he invented, - the so-called, - "curvature space".
He combined the 2 already known distance and time dilemma and invented “space-time”..
Click to expand...

No, Minkowski "invented" space-time. However, since it only dealt with SR (inertial frames) and the Lorentz equation the resulting Minkowski space is a flat space-time metric. It is GR dealing also with non-inertial (accelerating) reference frames that results in a curved space-time metric.


Bjarne said:
Again... the distortion of time and distance was known 25 years before his theory, therefore Einstein did not have any kind of patent, trying to explain this fact.
Click to expand...

So what, building on the developments of others is how science advances.

Maxwell's equations were around before that and that's what Lorentz himself was trying to build upon. You really do need to study.


Bjarne said:
Dear dear dear “The man” – and other man and beast,........ a stretching space theory is also build on the Lorentz equation, and also build on the same time-distance distortion, - it also include length contraction, and time dilation.
Click to expand...


Again based on the first value (your R0) in your chart, a Schwarzschild radius, it is also "built" on a curved space-time metric, oh dear!





Bjarne said:
The only difference is only WHAT SPACE REALLY DOES

The consequences based on a modified theory of relativity (MTR) based on stretching space, - compared to the and the well-known curvature concept is….. that MTR....

  • Is logic digestible, especially for unspoiled students.
  • It build on a NONE schizophrenic and therefore none insane worldview.
  • It is not causing any HUGE conflict with quantum physic,
  • It is not causing problems with other aspect of science such as so called black holes.
  • It is not claiming that gravitational lensing; MUST exist (which now is denied by a high ranging NASA astrophysicist that claims such is never detected.
  • It allow a simple and natural explanation, what dark energy really is, - just the opposite, - release of stretching space.
  • It even explains why so called dark energy (release of gravity) is “”accelerating””
  • It makes it possible to connect space to the strong nuclear interaction.
  • It makes it possible to understand gravity as a side effect of the strong force and therefore united
  • It can explain the perihelion anomaly only based on Newtonian classic physic.
  • It reveals that NASA have swept the pioneer anomaly under the blanket.
  • It clear and simple explain why space probes are accelerating when approaching close to the Earth
  • It can predict a SR – ISS test anomaly
  • It can predict and prove that Dark Flow is true.
  • And my friend it opens the universe to you in many many other ways, you and many fools are not willing to understand for no reason compared to the HUGE amount of problems connected to the prevailing understanding..
Click to expand...


Your dreams of what you would like your notions to do are irrelevant, what they actually do is a function (pun intended) of the math. Which evidently doesn't do what you want it to do as even you don't use your own equations and their results.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
I'm quite familiar with the history of that transformation. It actually wasn't in its current form until the French mathematician Jules Henri Poincaré in 1905. He just named it after Lorentz.

Don't suppose your speculations for that of Einstein and the proof of curved space-time is in the successful application of the mathematical models.
Click to expand...

Let's say the impossible is true, The influence of SR will not as expected result in faster ticking time, when moving north, - but excactly oppesite, time will instead tick slower.

What would be you first reaction ?
 
Bjarne said:
The latest update math showing that the perihelion anomaly can be calculated based on simple Newtonian math, combined with the consequences that the ruler is a relativistic variant (due to stretching space).


http://science27.com/forum/mercurian.jpg
Click to expand...

Still using a time dilation equation based on a curved space-time metric. Now you just have it as 1- instead of -1. Which evidently is just to get you a number you like as the actual time dilation doesn't do that. Also as noted by Reality Check before, no arcsec/Julian century. So again it looks like your distance difference and how you attempt to calculate it would be on each orbit.

How about going through the list given by W.D.Clinger and explaining how you specifically addressed each of the issues brought up?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11461799#post11461799
 
Bjarne said:
Let's say the impossible is true, The influence of SR will not as expected result in faster ticking time, when moving north, - but excactly oppesite, time will instead tick slower.

What would be you first reaction ?
Click to expand...


My first reaction is the same reaction I have already given here a number of times. Your purported explanation is the result of motion with or against some "flow". So no more to do with relativity than traveling with or against the flow of some river. Whatever the relative speed ends up being is the relevant issue in SR not how it got that way.

"faster" and "slower" are comparative statements, so "faster" and "slower" as compared to exactly what frame of reference is what you need for those comparative statements to be in any way relevant.
 
The Man said:
My first reaction is the same reaction I have already given here a number of times. Your purported explanation is the result of motion with or against some "flow". So no more to do with relativity than traveling with or against the flow of some river. Whatever the relative speed ends up being is the relevant issue in SR not how it got that way.

"faster" and "slower" are comparative statements, so "faster" and "slower" as compared to exactly what frame of reference is what you need for those comparative statements to be in any way relevant.
Click to expand...

That seems to be the thrust of his argument. He's an advocate of an ether and his "flow" arguments assume such an ether exists. He has chosen to advance his ether argument under the guise of an uninformed attack on relativity. Because he has no working comprehension of relativity, he assumes it's in conflict with his ether theory.

How he concluded that Newton's laws of gravity were never applied to the oddities of Mercury's orbit, when the oddities are known because observations are in conflict with what Newtons laws predict, speaks volumes about his general ignorance of the entirety of the field where he currently purports to be the preeminent master.
 
The Man said:
My first reaction is the same reaction I have already given here a number of times. Your purported explanation is the result of motion with or against some "flow". So no more to do with relativity than traveling with or against the flow of some river. Whatever the relative speed ends up being is the relevant issue in SR not how it got that way.

"faster" and "slower" are comparative statements, so "faster" and "slower" as compared to exactly what frame of reference is what you need for those comparative statements to be in any way relevant.
Click to expand...

Ok
so what you really is saying is that it would be a HUGE surprise ?
 
halleyscomet said:
That seems to be the thrust of his argument. He's an advocate of an ether and his "flow" arguments assume such an ether exists. He has chosen to advance his ether argument under the guise of an uninformed attack on relativity. Because he has no working comprehension of relativity, he assumes it's in conflict with his ether theory.

How he concluded that Newton's laws of gravity were never applied to the oddities of Mercury's orbit, when the oddities are known because observations are in conflict with what Newtons laws predict, speaks volumes about his general ignorance of the entirety of the field where he currently purports to be the preeminent master.
Click to expand...

Ok
so what you really is saying is that it would be a GIGANTIC surprise ?
Well its nice to have that clear
 
The Man said:
Still using a time dilation equation based on a curved space-time metric. Now you just have it as 1- instead of -1. Which evidently is just to get you a number you like as the actual time dilation doesn't do that. Also as noted by Reality Check before, no arcsec/Julian century. So again it looks like your distance difference and how you attempt to calculate it would be on each orbit.

How about going through the list given by W.D.Clinger and explaining how you specifically addressed each of the issues brought up?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11461799#post11461799
Click to expand...

We talk a lot past each other. What I am presenting is a brand new way to understand relativity .
 
Bjarne said:
Ok
so what you really is saying is that it would be a GIGANTIC surprise ?
Well its nice to have that clear
Click to expand...

No. What I'm saying is you don't know enough about physics to even describe your ideas in a coherent manner. You can't even construct them coherently in your own mind, let alone communicate them to anyone else. It's now clear why you've provided no equations to be used in testing your ideas. Your ideas don't have a sufficient internal cohesion or connection to reality to even BE testable.

The only surprise you're capable of giving anyone is bottomless nature of your scientific ignorance and illiteracy.
 
Bjarne said:
We talk a lot past each other. What I am presenting is a brand new way to understand relativity .
Click to expand...

No you're not.

You don't understand relativity enough to provide an alternative way of understanding it.

Stop lying and claiming you understand relativity, when you've proven again and again that you do not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom