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

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: A lie about "80% GR math" when no GR is involved in your ignorant math

80% GR math = done,,.....

31 August 2016 Bjarne: A lie about "80% GR math = done" when no GR is involved in your ignorant math not about the perihelion precession of Mercury!
GR is not the abysmally ignorant act of arbitrarily inserting a Lorentz factor into classical equations.

30 August 2016 Bjarne: A lie about an image having calculations of the perihelion precession of Mercury.
30 August 2016 Bjarne: A "100% perfect prediction" delusion since your predictions do not match observations.

 

[halleyscomet]

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.

All joking aside, if you're discarding the idea of curved space-time, which non-Euclidean geometry are you proposing as an alternative? Are you going to try and explain the mathematics of gravity in Euclidean terms, dealing with nonlinear equations?

If you PM me an email address I'll use Audible.com's "Send a book" to send you the audiobook of "The Hunt for Vulcan" by Thomas Levenson. It goes over a LOT of the science you're failing to grasp in an engaging, narrative manner quite accessible to the layman.

 

[Reality Check]

Bjarne: The delusion that "redshift will be blueshift"

...
It is in fact incredible easy what went wrong

That is right - it is incredibly easy to see what has gone horribly wrong with your posts over the last 7 years, Bjarne. You are using your ignorance about physics to write delusions about physics !

31 August 2016 Bjarne: GR is a lot more than the Lorentz transformation.
SR is mostly the Lorentz transformation but not as in your previous "schizophrenic" rants.

31 August 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that "redshift will be blueshift".
Any light emitting object that travels away from an observer will have the light redshift. This is the Doppler effect.

31 August 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that "gravity will be dark energy".
Gravity is an attractive force. Dark energy is not really a force - it is an energy! It appears as a negative pressure in GR for a positive cosmological constant.

 

[Bjarne]

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 .....

So where is the quantitative evidence for curvature of space and how it is related to the stones falling from the moon.

 

[Bjarne]

All joking aside, if you're discarding the idea of curved space-time, which non-Euclidean geometry are you proposing as an alternative? Are you going to try and explain the mathematics of gravity in Euclidean terms, dealing with nonlinear equations?
.

Time and rulers are variants, that's is all you need.
Put the Euclidean geometry up to a place where no grass can grow

 

[halleyscomet]

Time and rulers are variants, that's is all you need.

Put the Euclidean geometry up to a place where no grass can grow

Wow.

And I thought your cluelessness was epic BEFORE.

Your entire explanation for the orbits of interstellar bodies and the path of gravity and the math to predict those orbits and paths is "Time and rulers are variants."

Wow.

/me literally laughs out loud.

That's like asking a quack doctor for his alternative to germ theory and getting the response, "You breathe air, that's all you need to know."

How have you managed to remain THIS *********** clueless about physics after YEARS of discussing it with people on this forum?

 

[Bjarne]

Wow.

And I thought your cluelessness was epic BEFORE.

Your entire explanation for the orbits of interstellar bodies and the path of gravity and the math to predict those orbits and paths is "Time and rulers are variants."

Wow.

* halleyscomet;11467402 literally laughs out loud.

That's like asking a quack doctor for his alternative to germ theory and getting the response, "You breathe air, that's all you need to know."

How have you managed to remain THIS *********** clueless about physics after YEARS of discussing it with people on this forum?

Hej, ask the quack doctor , where is the E V I D E N C E for the Euclidean geometry

 

[halleyscomet]

So where is the quantitative evidence for curvature of space and how it is related to the stones falling from the moon.

Eddington successfully measured the curvature of space-time around the sun in 1919.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Eddington#Relativity

Gravitational lensing of light around interstellar objects was a prediction of the curved space-time theory. It had never been observed until we went looking for it as a result of Einstein's prediction that space-time would be curved.

The curvature of space time provides the framework by which we can calculate the trajectory of an object moving from the moon to the earth. Escaping the moon's gravity well, making its way from one object to the other through the vacuum of space, and even descending through our atmosphere before either burning up or striking the earth are all calculable using Einstein's mathematics which in turn are based upon the curvature of space time.

The fact that we successfully landed men on the moon and brought them back is a proof of the curvature of space time. All the equations used to get spaceships and satellites up into orbit and to their destinations all rely upon the curvature of space time.

 

[halleyscomet]

So where is the quantitative evidence for curvature of space and how it is related to the stones falling from the moon.

NASA and everyone else who shoots things into space rely upon mathematics that depend upon the curvature of space-time. This is real world work being done based upon the curvature of space-time. If you want to overthrow the idea that space-time is curved, you first, and I am not exaggerating here, need to come up with a complete replacement for the mathematics used by NASA and other space agencies to get objects from one planet to another successfully. Your new system then needs to work as well as or better than the math they're already using. That's just to be taken seriously. That's just to get a seat at the table. That's just to avoid being laughed off for your grotesque ignorance and complete lack of understanding.

And you brag about being both lazy and having a kindergarten level understanding of mathematics.

Good luck, you'll need it.

 

[Belz...]

Hej, ask the quack doctor , where is the E V I D E N C E for the Euclidean geometry

The fact that non-Euclidian geometries don't exist?

 

[halleyscomet]

The fact that non-Euclidian geometries don't exist?

Non-Euclidean geometry is used for calculations in curved space-time among other applications. Most the use of such systems is either in advanced physics, like space flight, or pure math, neither of which are realms most of us ever venture.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry

 

[halleyscomet]

Hej, ask the quack doctor , where is the E V I D E N C E for the Euclidean geometry

You might want to look up what Euclidean geometry is before you humiliate yourself by demanding proof of it.

http://bfy.tw/7TSi

 

[The Man]

So where is the quantitative evidence for curvature of space and how it is related to the stones falling from the moon.

Again altering quotes won't help you.

Who here made any claims about "stones falling from the moon."?

If you actually wish to learn about the quantitative details of space-time curvature plenty of resources are available. You even use one yourself. The (R0) and time dilation equation from your chart are derived from the Schwarzschild metric.

Trying to shift burden of proof won't help you either.

 

[The Man]

Time and rulers are variants, that's is all you need.
Put the Euclidean geometry up to a place where no grass can grow

So are you claiming your 'stretched space' geometry is non-Euclidean?

 

[The Man]

Non-Euclidean geometry is used for calculations in curved space-time among other applications. Most the use of such systems is either in advanced physics, like space flight, or pure math, neither of which are realms most of us ever venture.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Euclidean_geometry

Well, just navigating on the surface of a sphere (like the Erath) is non-Euclidean. Parallel north or south paths will eventually meet. If you lay out a large triangle on the surface the angles won't add up to 180 degrees. The parallel transport of a vector around a closed loop does not end up pointing in the same direction upon completing the loop. Locally the Earth seems flat and surface features often vary more than that local curvature so we don't notice it but the geometry on the surface of a sphere is non-Euclidean

 

[The Man]

NASA and everyone else who shoots things into space rely upon mathematics that depend upon the curvature of space-time. This is real world work being done based upon the curvature of space-time. If you want to overthrow the idea that space-time is curved, you first, and I am not exaggerating here, need to come up with a complete replacement for the mathematics used by NASA and other space agencies to get objects from one planet to another successfully. Your new system then needs to work as well as or better than the math they're already using. That's just to be taken seriously. That's just to get a seat at the table. That's just to avoid being laughed off for your grotesque ignorance and complete lack of understanding.

And you brag about being both lazy and having a kindergarten level understanding of mathematics.

Good luck, you'll need it.

Actually if I recall correctly such space exploration simply employs Newtonian gravity as the speeds and field strengths just don't rise to the level of requiring SR and GR to project flight paths and dynamics. The difference between the results is negligible and not significant compared to other sources of variation.

ETA: I should note (as already noted before) that the GPS satellite constellation, by virtue of its intended function, does require relativistic corrections for operational accuracy.

 

[Bjarne]

So are you claiming your 'stretched space' geometry is non-Euclidean?

Space is only Euclidean where the pepper grows

 

[halleyscomet]

Space is only Euclidean where the pepper grows

                      ____...                                           
             .-"--"""".__    `.                                         
            |            `    |                                         
  (         `._....------.._.:      o< Space is only Euclidean  
   . )       (   <o>  <o>    g)      where the pepper grows
    )         )     /        J
   (          |.   /      . (                                           
   $$         (.  (_'.   , )|`                      -Bjarne
   ||         |\`-....--'/  ' \        
  /||.         \\ | | | /  /   \.                                       
 //||(\         \`-===-'  '     \o.                                     
.//7' |)         `. --   / (     OObaaaad888b.                          
(<<. / |     .a888b`.__.'d\     OO888888888888a.       
 \  Y' |    .8888888aaaa88POOOOOO888888888888888.                       
  \  \ |   .888888888888888888888888888888888888b    
   |   |  .d88888P88888888888888888888888b8888888.                      
   b.--d .d88888P8888888888888888a:f888888|888888b                      
   88888b 888888|8888888888888888888888888\8888888

Your physics analogies are getting increasingly obtuse.


(ASCII art courtesy of http://www.asciiartfarts.com/conspiracy_duck.html)

 

[Dancing David]

Hej, ask the quack doctor , where is the E V I D E N C E for the Euclidean geometry

Rather the burden is on you to demonstrate you theory, so when does the time line end at the end of 2017 or the end of 2016?

 

[halleyscomet]

Hej, ask the quack doctor , where is the E V I D E N C E for the Euclidean geometry

                      ____...                                           
             .-"--"""".__    `.                                         
            |            `    |                                         
  (         `._....------.._.:               
   . )       (   <o>  <o>    g)           "Hej, ask the  quack doctor
    )         )     /        J             where is the E V I D E N C E 
   (          |.   /      . (              for the Euclidean geometry"
   $$         (.  (_'.   , )|`
   ||         |\`-....--'/  ' \               - Bjarne, who apparently 
  /||.         \\ | | | /  /   \.                       never took geometry 
 //||(\         \`-===-'  '     \o.                     in high school     
.//7' |)         `. --   / (     OObaaaad888b.                          
(<<. / |     .a888b`.__.'d\     OO888888888888a.
 \  Y' |    .8888888aaaa88POOOOOO888888888888888.                       
  \  \ |   .888888888888888888888888888888888888b
   |   |  .d88888P88888888888888888888888b8888888.                      
   b.--d .d88888P8888888888888888a:f888888|888888b                      
   88888b 888888|8888888888888888888888888\8888888