• 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.
Bjarne said:
Ok
so what you really is saying is that it would be a HUGE surprise ?
Click to expand...

No, as you won't find the words "HUGE" or "surprise" anywhere in what I said and you quoted. Again what I'm saying is that your assertions have nothing to do with relativity. If you want them to then you need to show exactly and quantitatively what you think the "expected result" of the "influence of SR" would be and then, again exactly and quantitatively, what your "expected result" would be. Otherwise you just don't know what is "expected" from SR or your own notions.
 
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...

Bjarne realizes he is in way over his head and tries to change the subject to something immaterial.

Sorry, pal, but how we would react if something that hasn't happened did happen is entirely irrelevant.

And, if you must go there, perhaps you should start thinking about your own reaction when it does NOT happen (I suggest change your name and leave town).

Hans
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzpKQlOOKiw
Click to expand...

Oh dear. This guy says that space is supposed to curve smoothly, and QM says it will actually be stepwise. Well, Bjarne, QM does that to things. You might as well say QM is in opposition to circles, ad they are supposed to be smooth.

What to you think a graviton is?

Anyhow, what makes you think your stretched space would do better in this respect? Why would that escape quantum levels? Because you say so?

Hans
 
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, your assertions here and even recently about the Lorentz equation, demonstrate that what you are "presenting" is a simple, perhaps deliberate, lack of understanding of relativity and that ain't new.

Simply subtracting a value from 1 to get a number you like better isn't math or physics but just numerology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerology
 
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...

Yep and apparently assumes others similarly have or had no such working comprehension. Hence his assertion before about having to "attempt to try to solve mysterious consequences of Lorentz equation". Instead of understanding that the invariance of spherical waves in different frames of reference is how it was developed. Not "mysterious" to them.
 
The Man said:
Yep and apparently assumes others similarly have or had no such working comprehension. Hence his assertion before about having to "attempt to try to solve mysterious consequences of Lorentz equation". Instead of understanding that the invariance of spherical waves in different frames of reference is how it was developed. Not "mysterious" to them.
Click to expand...

A quote from another thread seems relevant in this one:

Perpetual Student said:
Refuting Einstein's theory of special relativity would involve a two-step process.
First, one must attain a thorough knowledge of the the theory, including its inherent predictions (with mathematical precision).
Second, conduct an actual experiment showing that the theory is not consistent with the outcome of that experiment (with mathematical precision).
Hint: start with step one.
Click to expand...

Bjarne isn't just skipping step 1, they're actively mocking the idea that it's necessary, then fobbing step 2 off on others.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Bjarne realizes he is in way over his head and tries to change the subject to something immaterial.

Sorry, pal, but how we would react if something that hasn't happened did happen is entirely irrelevant.

And, if you must go there, perhaps you should start thinking about your own reaction when it does NOT happen (I suggest change your name and leave town).

Hans
Click to expand...

bla bla bla happen bla bla bla not happen´bla bla bla
 
Bjarne said:
... What I am presenting is a brand new way to understand relativity .
Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous, you have no working understanding of relativity. Doing work on relativity is way, way beyond your apparently rather limited capacities.
It is safe to say that what I said just above could politely be called an understatement.
 
Bjarne said:
We will see who is the dum and naive
Click to expand...

So instead of offering a mathematical defense of your equation, you choose instead to indulge in an insult one would expect from an exceptionally dim kindergartner.

Somehow, I am not surprised.
 
Bjarne said:
The 2 biggest theories , - relativity and quantum physic , contradicts each other dear, it is no longer the case with my theory..
Click to expand...
Since you cannot demonstrate the existence of such contradictions and the existence of an actual theory of your own, your statement can simply be dismissed as tragicomical.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
... mysterious Lorenz Equations, .
... mysterious consequences of Lorentz equation. ...
Click to expand...

They seem mysterious to you, because you have no working understanding of them.

One man's quantum mechanics is another man's Lorentz equation.
Ignorant people use their ignorance to guide them to ....... fantasy, not knowledge.
 
Bjarne said:
We will see who is the dum and naive
Click to expand...

What we already can see is that you have no working understanding of the field you appear to belief are eminently knowledgeable about.
What we also already can see is that you are utterly incapable of doing the actual necessary work for an actual theory involving relativity.

When asked to quantify your claims, you run away, you utter claptrap, appear to attempt to insult with the 'vigor' of a small child.
We definitely have seen quite enough, but you will yet show us more of the same.
Much, much more.
 
Bjarne said:
We will see who is the dum and naive
Click to expand...

We see it and we've seen it before on this forum. Deliberate ignorance, and you have asserted your avoidance of detail is deliberate, is nothing new here and isn't any kind of understanding. Likewise the proclamations of some redeeming event to come are also not new here. Similarly nebulous claims we've seen on this forum and lacking any quantitative definitive extents, no event can be said to be supportive or dismissive. While you might claim (as you do already) something exculpates you, you still won't be able to show it as you don't even know what the quantitative consequences of your notions are. You have a great deal of work to do before even you can see or show anything to comport with your notions.

How's the work on you actually using the results of your own equations going?
 
Daylightstar said:
What we already can see is that you have no working understanding of the field you appear to belief are eminently knowledgeable about.
What we also already can see is that you are utterly incapable of doing the actual necessary work for an actual theory involving relativity.

When asked to quantify your claims, you run away, you utter claptrap, appear to attempt to insult with the 'vigor' of a small child.
We definitely have seen quite enough, but you will yet show us more of the same.
Much, much more.
Click to expand...

I for one hope he gets entertaining again soon. He's gotten very repetitive and is rehashing the same old material he's been going on with. At least Kyoon has the decency to change things up a bit and switch to a new conspiracy theory after he's exhausted his routine. It keeps HIS performance fresh.

Admittedly, Kyoon draws from a larger realm of extreme crackpottery than Bjarne, but I hold out hope Bjarne can rally. It's going to be hard to make a comeback after their efforts at going math sputtered like a damp firework. Such a logical and entertainment failure has GOT to be demoralizing.
 
halleyscomet said:
I for one hope he gets entertaining again soon. He's gotten very repetitive and is rehashing the same old material he's been going on with. At least Kyoon has the decency to change things up a bit and switch to a new conspiracy theory after he's exhausted his routine. It keeps HIS performance fresh.

Admittedly, Kyoon draws from a larger realm of extreme crackpottery than Bjarne, but I hold out hope Bjarne can rally. It's going to be hard to make a comeback after their efforts at going math sputtered like a damp firework. Such a logical and entertainment failure has GOT to be demoralizing.
Click to expand...

A one trick pony is a one trick pony :D
Bjarne changes very slowly though. Where 8 years ago he proclaimed the curvature of space, he now appears violently opposed to it.
All without any rationale, of course.

Perhaps after the "not happen" he will come up with something fresh.
You may still be in for a treat :D :thumbsup:
You may have to be patient though ;)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom