• 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.
halleyscomet said:
The important detail is Bjarne has a religious belief, not a scientific thesis. He has certain beliefs about how the universe functions and, because that's the extent to which he comprehends science, he thinks actual physicists operate the same way. That's why his efforts at a mathematical support of his belief system are so comically inept. He seems to really believe that's how real scientists use math, as window dressing to the words that describe the images in their imagination, so he uses it the same way.

That's why it makes perfect sense that he's never worked though the implications of his religious belief in relation to things like particle colliders and GPS satellites. True, he can come up with an on-the-spot excuse when challenged, but he's not proactively using his ideas to explore the universe and probe its mysteries. He isn't testing his beliefs against various real-world observations to determine if he's right or not. He isn't REALLY tying to expose the secrets of nature, but to prove himself right.
Click to expand...
Exactly! He is not a physicist (or any kind of scientist) by any stretch of the imagination. This thread is a colossal waste of time.
 
phunk said:
This would have been seen a long time ago in a variety of experiments that have already been done. Particle accelerators for example would have different results based on their orientation.
Click to expand...

You should then also have notice a difference when particles moving opposite the earth orbit, or opposite the rotation of the Earth, or opposite the motion of the galaxy..
I believe there is no effect at all.
Particle "moving", or rather floating, - in a strong magnetic field interacts with the magnetic field.
This is causing them to move.
It’s an entirely different experiment, because; What is a magnetic field ? - space? - space in motion ?
And is the strong magnetic field destroying the normal interaction the particle else would have with "neutral" space ?
We have a bit more to learn here..
 
Perpetual Student said:
Exactly! He is not a physicist (or any kind of scientist) by any stretch of the imagination. This thread is a colossal waste of time.
Click to expand...

stretch of the imagination, is important in a world full of very very cool left brain (concrete) box scientists
 
halleyscomet said:
There you go again.



Harping on the same old, same old debunked nonsense. It's not MY job to run calculations to prove YOUR belief system correct, it's YOUR job to do it. I shouldn't be surprised. You are the person who BRAGS about being lazy and not understanding anything beyond kindergarten math.

Seriously. It's like you're TRYING to bore us by repeating the same act again and again. Do the math or stop harping about it. That greasepaint has already worn off your face and looks ragged and tired.
Click to expand...

SR math = done
80% GR math = done,, http://science27.com/mercury.pdf
20% GR math, find a rocket scientist..
 
Bjarne said:
GR-Time dilation will be the same for GR and Modifed Theory of relativity. (MRT), - MRT asserts that time (and everything else) is stretched proportional.. therefore the time dilation aspect is unchanged..


If you have calculated one Lorentz factor, you have calculated them all, just manipulate and meter will be time, and so soon you really understand this you will also easy understand how redshift will be blueshift, - and gravity will be dark energy..

It is in fact incredible easy what went wrong
Click to expand...

No, our three spatial dimensions are independent of each other and the temporal dimension independent of those 3. Due to the consistency of the speed of light we can represent these 4 independent dimensions (often noted as 3+1 to indicate the difference in the hyperbolic summation of the time dimension with the other 3) in the same units (of distance or time). However, just dividing some spatial distance by c only gives you the time for light to transverse that distance. Which may not necessarily be any temporally relevant displacement for the situation being considered. For example events that happen at the same place but different times have no displacment in the spatial dimensions.

For a space-like separation not enough time passes between events for light to travel that distance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Space-like_interval

For a time-like separation the time between events is always greater than the length of time for light to travel between the spatial locations of the events.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Time-like_interval

For light-like separation time between the events is the time for light to travel between the spatial locations of the events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Light-like_interval

So the last is about the only one where just changing a distance to a time might be relevant as that light travel time is the time between the events.
 
Bjarne said:
You should then also have notice a difference when particles moving opposite the earth orbit, or opposite the rotation of the Earth, or opposite the motion of the galaxy..
I believe there is no effect at all.
Particle "moving", or rather floating, - in a strong magnetic field interacts with the magnetic field.
This is causing them to move.
It’s an entirely different experiment, because; What is a magnetic field ? - space? - space in motion ?
And is the strong magnetic field destroying the normal interaction the particle else would have with "neutral" space ?
We have a bit more to learn here..
Click to expand...

Well, there you go again.



...assuming that just because it's beyond your personal comprehension it must also be a big, spooky mystery to all the world's physicists. Of course, in the real world, scientists known an awful lot about how magnetic fields impact objects moving through them.

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

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Physics_equations/Magnetic_field_calculations

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

See, now, this is a FUN part of your act. You say something profoundly ignorant and uninformed, and we respond by proving 5 minutes on Google can show the big mysteries that stymie you are actually fairly well tread roads among scientists. Hell, magnetic fields are pretty well tread roads for most high school and college physics students, especially Electrical engineering students!

I find it particularly funny when you grab a few names from the links people provide and incorporate them into future versions of your word salad beliefs.

Bjarne said:
stretch of the imagination, is important in a world full of very very cool left brain (concrete) box scientists
Click to expand...

Oh goody! that gag hasn't gotten old yet. I LOVE it when you act like something as empirical and evidence based as science can be haphazardly overthrown by any idiot with a vivid imagination but no actual science comprehension or education. In the real world, Einstein definitely and a vivid imagination, but he had a strong mathematics and physics education to back it up.

It's always fun to watch people with imagination and no competence try to insist competence is unimportant. Unless you're working for them. Idiots who put their imaginary view of the world ahead of reality, especially when assigning tasks or conducting your salary evaluation, are always a good reason to find a better job.
 
Bjarne said:
...
This is why I have tried to tell you, it is all about the Lorentz transformation..
...
Click to expand...
One man's quantum mechanics is another man's Lorentz equation.
A previous post is relevant here:
Daylightstar said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Perpetual Student said:
Excellent demonstration of how and why this thread is a waste of time. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Oh come on this thread is hilarious. It's like watching George Costanza try to impress a woman by pretending to be a skilled physicist, only this Costanza lacks the TV version's charm, likability or capacity for inspiring empathy, so we can laugh at him with impunity and not feel sorry for him at all when he gets rhetorically curb stomped like Bambi in Bambi meets Godzilla.



Bjarne said:
SR math = done
80% GR math = done,, http://science27.com/mercury.pdf
20% GR math, find a rocket scientist..
Click to expand...

Remember what I wrote earlier about how he sees math as window-dressing, devoid of meaning or context? This spreadsheet is a perfect example. We've already discussed this laughable attempt at using math to back up his equations and he has flatly dismissed all the legitimate criticisms that have been raised about his spreadsheet. It doesn't even "calculated one Lorentz factor" which he's repeatedly insisted is KEY to proving his beliefs.

He hasn't written a paper, he's vomited up a spreadsheet under the apparent impression that they're equivalent.

To top it all off he STILL hasn't produced a paper that would explain what test results from the ISS experiment he keeps harping about would support his beliefs.
 
Daylightstar said:
None of the math done in relativity has any bearing on your little meaningless idea and quite clearly nor do you have the capacity for understanding any of it.
Click to expand...

Like I said, he sees math as window-dressing on thought experiments and fiction, not as the bedrock of evidence. This is as close as he gets to understanding the role of math in physics.
 
Bjarne said:
You should then also have notice a difference when particles moving opposite the earth orbit, or opposite the rotation of the Earth, or opposite the motion of the galaxy..
I believe there is no effect at all.
Particle "moving", or rather floating, - in a strong magnetic field interacts with the magnetic field.
This is causing them to move.
It’s an entirely different experiment, because; What is a magnetic field ? - space? - space in motion ?
And is the strong magnetic field destroying the normal interaction the particle else would have with "neutral" space ?
We have a bit more to learn here..
Click to expand...

Again it doesn't matter in relativity why the particle is moving just how fast. If your notions have some problem with why something is moving then that is a limitation of your notions and something you need to figure out. Also some of the earliest opservations to confirm SR are high speed muons, not from accelerators.


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation_of_moving_particles
 
halleyscomet said:
Like I said, he sees math as window-dressing on thought experiments and fiction, not as the bedrock of evidence. This is as close as he gets to understanding the role of math in physics.
Click to expand...

It's true.
I seem to remember that in his declaration of incompetence and ineptitude in pdf format he has somewhere printed the lorentz dilation factor in blue, so it is more noticeable :D
Window dressing for sure.

He has no clue what is all means.
 
The Man said:
No, our three spatial dimensions are independent of each other and the temporal dimension independent of those 3. Due to the consistency of the speed of light we can represent these 4 independent dimensions (often noted as 3+1 to indicate the difference in the hyperbolic summation of the time dimension with the other 3) in the same units (of distance or time). However, just dividing some spatial distance by c only gives you the time for light to transverse that distance. Which may not necessarily be any temporally relevant displacement for the situation being considered. For example events that happen at the same place but different times have no displacment in the spatial dimensions.

For a space-like separation not enough time passes between events for light to travel that distance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Space-like_interval

For a time-like separation the time between events is always greater than the length of time for light to travel between the spatial locations of the events.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Time-like_interval

For light-like separation time between the events is the time for light to travel between the spatial locations of the events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Light-like_interval

So the last is about the only one where just changing a distance to a time might be relevant as that light travel time is the time between the events.
Click to expand...
You have to think in completely different terms, space, time and everything else is elastic. This is what relativity is about, quite simple.. A lot will fall to the ground.
 
Bjarne said:
You have to think in completely different terms, space, time and everything else is elastic. This is what relativity is about, quite simple.. A lot will fall to the ground.
Click to expand...


No, again relativity makes no such assertions. If you want to actually make such assertions then it is up to you to quantitative show what those "elastic" properties are and how they relate. Again you have much work to do and myself as well as others have already given you links to specifically help you in that regard.

Anyway, "elastic" or not it still doesn't change the independence of the dimensions, how they sum or the limitations of the interval types noted. Simply pretending the word "elastic" changes any of that just shows you don't understand that word or those dimensional relations. Again deliberate ignorance will not help you, actually working on the quantitative implications of your notions might.

Heck, look at what we've already learned when you do actually try to apply some quantities and math. You try to use an equation from a curved space-time metric. Then in your sister example, she, being closer to the gravitating body actually measures the distance as less than you do, not more as stretching would imply. Then the actual difference you are expecting in your flyby test is just a difference in relative velocity. The devil is in the details and will exact his due.
 
Bjarne said:
You have to think in completely different terms, space, time and everything else is elastic. This is what relativity is about, quite simple.. A lot will fall to the ground.
Click to expand...

Yeah man. You just gotta like-

/me takes HUUUGE hit on a bong

Let go of all that corporate science **** man and stop letting The Man tell you what science is with all his "Experiments" and "tests" man "Math and ****" man.

/me takes a toke off the roach passed by Bjarne

Woahhh man, what's IN that ****** Wooo, I'm seeing some funky colors man. Is that PCP AND acid in the joint maaaan. Wooo, your CRAZY man. Anyway, you gotta like TOTALLY open your mind and let all these dark waves and stuff flow in to, like, teach you about a reality beyond all that math crap. You don't NEED math to do since man, you just need your FEELINGS and your imaginatION worked and twisted by magnetic fields MAAAAAAN. Let the positron collider in your MIND do the work duuude.

/me takes a long draw off Bjarne's joint. Bjarne reaches for it to take it back but a surprisingly deft hand movement for one with eyes that red keeps it from being retrieved. Bjarne tips forward and flops onto the floor, unconscious. He begins snoring.

The Man said:
No, again relativity makes no such assertions.
Click to expand...

You like, can't let those physicists and that dead Einstein dude tell you what Relativity means man. It means what you WANT it to it mean, like Humpty Dumpty said in Alice in Wonderland, right man? Relativity means what you want it to mean man. So what if "elasticity' wasn't in what Einstein wrote? He's some dead German, er, Swiss dude or something. I bet he died before elastics were even INVENTED man, so how could he know space-time was, like, straight and elastic man?

/me passes out muttering "Einstein never got good and HIGH man."

/me drops the adulterated roach Bjarne had given him. Fortunately it lands on tile, where instead of starting a fire, it smoulders like a stick of hallucinogenic, pot scented incense.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
I did, remember the stones ?
Click to expand...

Yes, I think being stoned would help one make sense of your assertions about what Relativity claims.



Well, not make sense of them, but agree with them until the high wears off.

All joking aside, you really DO need to actually READ the relevant papers if you're going to attack their theories and equations.

It would also help if you stopped contradicting yourself. You also need to stop describing opposing phenomenon that cancel each other out, thus becoming untestable. A single, coherent theory with, you know, something that can be TESTED would really help.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
The Man said:
No, again relativity makes no such assertions. If you want to actually make such assertions .
Click to expand...

I did, remember the stones ?
Click to expand...


Dishonesty and deliberately altering quotes will not help you.

The Man said:
No, again relativity makes no such assertions. If you want to actually make such assertions then it is up to you to quantitative show what those "elastic" properties are and how they relate.
Click to expand...


Similarly neither stones nor sticks will help you. Again quantitative examination just might, though evidently just not the way you want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom