• 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.
MRC_Hans said:
Oh, was that sentence too complicated for you?

Hans
Click to expand...

MRC Hans, I have a (only slightly) off topic remark.
I am always amazed how incredibly pertinent and appropriate your fenced blue face avatar is in depicting the wilful ignorance of woo and irrationality.
 
Daylightstar said:
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 ;)
Click to expand...

He's like one of those "Monster of the week" procedural shows. Fun at first, but once the pattern become obvious and monotonous, you need to step away, at least for a while.
 
Daylightstar said:
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.
Click to expand...

Soon you will understand that it is foolish to waste time on something so ridiculous
 
Bjarne said:
No too silly
The prediction is really unique. Amazing that you still can ignore if also after predicted results re facts
Click to expand...

Daylightstar said:
That sums up nicely the value of his presentation :)
Click to expand...

Case in point. The first few times we see his "Can't comprehend that physicists make predictions with math," routine it's funny and inspires engagement and an attempt to explain it to him. After a while however it gets old. The response isn't, "How can I get him to understand he hasn't actually MADE a prediction yet?" but a groaning "Oh, not this crap again."

It's like Urkel's "Did I do that?" only less endearing.

 
halleyscomet said:
So instead of offering a mathematical defense of your equation,
Click to expand...
I did already, and it was almost ignored..

you choose instead to indulge in an insult one would expect from an exceptionally dim kindergartner.

Somehow, I am not surprised.
Click to expand...

Which other response do you expect to arrogant opinions..

Lets say that you predict that 17 of January the Sun will rise in west, - the whole world off course expect it to rise in east
Futhermore you can predict it will rise 9 a clock and not 8,17
Its all a very unique prediction.

Now , it happens, and which credit will you get ?
´
Arrogance

Nice right ?

So who belong to the kindergarten ?

In Denmark such kind of behavior is not only a behavior, is a law, - we call it; - Jantelov.
In short it mean forever jealous.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
Soon you will understand that it is foolish to waste time on something so ridiculous
Click to expand...

This line is ALMOST interesting. Is Bjarne referring to understanding relativity and thus actively mocking the idea of trying to understand a theory before tying to attack it, or is it a meta-reference to his OWN futile efforts?

If it were in the context of an engaging part of the act it would be entertaining, but at this point the spark of almost-self-parody is more of a reminder of how stale the act has become, a brief glimmer of cleverness. It's like Spike stabbing Vampire Harmony when she's holding the ring that grants vampires indestructibility, a brief highlight of cleverness and humor in an otherwise dreary, plodding part of the story.

Bjarne said:
Which other response do you expect to arrogant opinions
Click to expand...

It's like he's not even trying anymore. I mean, the comment he was replying to explicitly stated the kind of response I was expecting. Playing up his poor reading comprehension in equations and abstract discussion is one thing, but playing that card in response to such an obvious statement is just plain lazy.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
No too silly
The prediction is really unique. Amazing that you still can ignore if also after predicted results re facts
Click to expand...

Again it is in no way unique nor even a prediction. You say "faster", "slower" and "expected" without any explicit quantitative reference for those comparative and projective terms. Again until you can establish those quantitative references you don't have a prediction, unique or otherwise.
 
Bjarne said:
I did already, and it was almost ignored..
...
Click to expand...
Not ignored, it simply lacked the required quality :D

Bjarne said:
...
So who belong to the kindergarten ?
...
Click to expand...
You're the one bringing up kindergarten all the time ......

Bjarne said:
...
In Denmark such kind of behavior is not only a behavior, is a law, - we call it; - Jantelov.
In short it mean forever jealous.
Click to expand...
In science, one needs to do the actual work, it is a necessity. Your irrational belief and lack of relevant capabilities prevent you from actually doing the work.

Even though, in the case of your belief, there is no work to be done :D
 
Bjarne said:
I did already, and it was almost ignored..
Click to expand...

*sigh*

You know full well a poster challenged a specific thing you did in the equation. Instead of responding to their perfectly legitimate concern you insulted them. If you're this thin-skinned on this forum then you're going to be eaten alive if you attempt to engage with actual physicists in a professional capacity.

Bjarne said:
Which other response do you expect to arrogant opinions..

Lets say that you predict that 17 of January the Sun will rise in west, - the whole world off course expect it to rise in east
Futhermore you can predict it will rise 9 a clock and not 8,17
Its all a very unique prediction.

Now , it happens, and which credit will you get ?
´
Arrogance

Nice right ?
Click to expand...

There you go again, insisting your vague meanderings somehow constitute a prediction that can be tested. Why do you persist in pretending vague assertions are on the same level as Urbain Le Verrier predicting the moment the transit of Mercury would begin and startling the astronomical community by only being off by a few seconds, making it the most accurate prediction of Mercury's orbit using Newtonian physics that had yet been done?

Bjarne said:
So who belong to the kindergarten ?
Click to expand...

Well, you do. You brag about it incessantly.

Bjarne said:
In Denmark such kind of behavior is not only a behavior, is a law, - we call it; - Jantelov.
In short it mean forever jealous.
Click to expand...

If ever I am consumed by jealousy of you I will arrange to get a lobotomy, thus bringing me down to your level.

By the way, how's your reading of Einstein's 1915 paper on the orbit of Mercury coming?
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
...
Now , it happens, and which credit will you get ?
...
Click to expand...
You haven't made a valid prediction, you'll need to do the actual math for it.
You will receive no credit. As I think it has been pointed out to you before, even in the remote chance that something would transpire that relates to relativity, you would still get no credit.

You wouldn't deserve it because you haven't done the work.
Daylightstar said:
...
In science, one needs to do the actual work, it is a necessity. Your irrational belief and lack of relevant capabilities prevent you from actually doing the work.

Even though, in the case of your belief, there is no work to be done :D
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
I did already, and it was almost ignored..
Click to expand...

"Almost" you say? So it wasn't ignored. In fact a number of people addressed specific aspects.


Bjarne said:
Which other response do you expect to arrogant opinions..
Click to expand...

How about actually addressing the issues raised about your math in an effort to help you even in spite of your "arrogant opinions.."



Bjarne said:
Lets say that you predict that 17 of January the Sun will rise in west, - the whole world off course expect it to rise in east
Futhermore you can predict it will rise 9 a clock and not 8,17
Its all a very unique prediction.
Click to expand...

Yet you can't even make such basic quantitative predictions from your assertions.

Bjarne said:
Now , it happens, and which credit will you get ?
Click to expand...

Whom ever makes a quantitative prediction or explanation. You have a lot of work to do.
´

Bjarne said:
Arrogance

Nice right ?
Click to expand...

Yours certainly isn't helping you. Just put half as much energy into actually studying the concepts as you do to your arrogance and ignorance and you might get somewhere.

Bjarne said:
So who belong to the kindergarten ?
Click to expand...

Those that just play at things and don't study them.


Bjarne said:
In Denmark such kind of behavior is not only a behavior, is a law, - we call it; - Jantelov.
In short it mean forever jealous.
Click to expand...

Well, ignorance may be bliss but it's hardly an envious demeanor.
 
Bjarne, may I ask what mathematical background you do have?

I ask because I did a degree in Mathematics and Astrophysics and some PhD work in Cosmology (dark matter). I now teach mathematics.

I spend a lot of my time helping students that are 'stuck'. Often the first thing I will do is ask them about their previous knowledge and to show me where their misunderstanding is or explain their misconception.

Without this basic level of communication it is hard to make progress or discuss work.

Indeed I HAVE had students questioning maths and physics many times and I love those discussions that result. But it had to be two ways and you have to lay all your cards on the table for it to work.



Sent from my Vodafone Smart ultra 6 using Tapatalk
 
Bjarne: A lie about curvature of spacetime never being proven correct

Bjarne said:
Notice that length contractions not is a consequence of SR or GR, it is a consequence of the Lorentz equation
Click to expand...
Followed by a equally ignorant wall of text, Bjarne :jaw-dropp!
Up to 1905, the Lorentz equation did not exist! Lorentz and Larmor had published approximations. The full Lorentz equation was published by Poincare on June 9, 1905.
Einstein's SR paper was submitted on June 30, 1905 and published in September 1905. Einstein knew abut the partial equations but not the Lorentz equation.

30 August 2016 Bjarne: A lie about SR being based on the Lorentz equation. Anyone can read the fact that SR is based on its 2 postulates from which it derives the Lorentz equation.

30 August 2016 Bjarne: The repeated lie about curvature of spacetime never being proven correct - experimental tests of GR only works with curvature of spacetime :jaw-dropp!

30 August 2016 Bjarne: The ignorant assertion that curvature of spacetime is related to the Lorentz equation. The curvature of spacetime is derived from the equivalence principle.

30 August 2016 Bjarne: It was Minkowski who invented "space-time"!

30 August 2016 Bjarne: Lots of lies and delusions about "MTR" starting with the lie that it is a modified theory of relativity. The RR delusion has nothing do with an ignorant picture of SR.
 
The RR fantasy appearing on 15 October 2009 here, continued ignorance of high school level science and digging a pit of fantasies from Bjarne (113 items of ignorance, fantasy, delusion and lies in this thread alone!).
  1. 24 August 2016 Bjarne: The lie that SR is only true in an absolute motion reference frame.
  2. 24 August 2016 Bjarne: A lie that there is no reason to reject the ether theory - there is the Mickelson-Morley experiment that you know about!
  3. 24 August 2016 Bjarne: The success of GR makes a "not correct theory" statement a lie
  4. 24 August 2016 Bjarne: Your ignorance of black holes does not make them "completely misunderstood".
  5. 24 August 2016 Bjarne: Three delusions are not problems with GR.
  6. 24 August 2016 Bjarne: Your RR delusions would not be believed by Einstein who knew some physics!
  7. 24 August 2016 Bjarne: As expected you remain ignorant about the perihelion anomaly of Mercury!
  8. 24 August 2016 Bjarne: The ignorant fantasy that black holes emit radio waves!
  9. 24 August 2016 Bjarne: Your persistent (7 years since you started posting here!) ignorance of GR does not make its math nonsense!
  10. 24 August 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that a "conflict with quantum physic" exists and will magically vanish because of your ignorance of the math of both GR and QM!
  11. 26 August 2016 Bjarne: A "nuclear particles interacts different with different tension of space" delusion.
  12. 26 August 2016 Bjarne: A repeated lie about Einstein forgetting to consider / decide what would happen to the rulers in SG and GR.
  13. 26 August 2016 Bjarne: The ignorant assertion that the Big Bang is a nuclear explosion!
  14. 26 August 2016 Bjarne: Ignorance about astronomy - neutron stars do not explode by themselves!
  15. 29 August 2016 Bjarne: Ignorant statements about SR or GR where rulers vary makes you a crank.
  16. 29 August 2016 Bjarne: "fanatic intolerant and brainwashed" remarks make you a crank.
  17. 29 August 2016 Bjarne: Ignorance even in red does not make you look any smarter about SR or GR.
  18. 29 August 2016 Bjarne: Argument from an ignorant image about the orbit of Mercury with no perihelion precession values at all.!
  19. 29 August 2016 Bjarne: A lie about calculating 80% of the perihelion anomaly of Mercury when you calculate no perihelion precession values at all.
  20. 29 August 2016 Bjarne: A fantasy that calculating 80% of any observation means that his RR delusion is correct because he can add a "change of the free fall geodesic path" delusion
  21. 29 August 2016 Bjarne: A lie about the history of GR - curvature of spacetime was never "stretching space".
 
Last edited:
halleyscomet said:
This line is ALMOST interesting. Is Bjarne referring to understanding relativity and thus actively mocking the idea of trying to understand a theory before tying to attack it, or is it a meta-reference to his OWN futile efforts?

If it were in the context of an engaging part of the act it would be entertaining, but at this point the spark of almost-self-parody is more of a reminder of how stale the act has become, a brief glimmer of cleverness. It's like Spike stabbing Vampire Harmony when she's holding the ring that grants vampires indestructibility, a brief highlight of cleverness and humor in an otherwise dreary, plodding part of the story.

It's like he's not even trying anymore. I mean, the comment he was replying to explicitly stated the kind of response I was expecting. Playing up his poor reading comprehension in equations and abstract discussion is one thing, but playing that card in response to such an obvious statement is just plain lazy.
Click to expand...

The future will judge whether I used enough time to understand schizophrenics relativity , - or you used enough time to understand modified theory of relativity.

Your opinion right now is nothing worth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom