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

[RussDill]

I was going to use the spreadsheet to calculate the precession of other bodies, but then I realized I have no clue where most of the numbers are coming from. Bjarne, can you create a version of the spreadsheet where it has named fields for the orbital parameters of Mercury so that they can be easily swapped out for other orbital systems?

 

[The Man]

Space is only Euclidean where the pepper grows

OK, so is your 'stretched space' "where the pepper grows"?


Word games won't help you.

 

[MRC_Hans]

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..

Interesting claim here. Now, in particle accelerators, particles come very close the speed of light. Since they sometimes move in the same direction as Earth's orbital movement, the resultant speed would be faster than light in a fixed velocity frame.

Bjarne is claiming that we have a fixed velocity frame. Bjarne also claims that particles in an electromagnetic field are somehow not limited by this. So logically, Bjarne claims that in an electromagnetic field, matter can move faster than light. Is that right, Bjarne?

Hans

 

[halleyscomet]

Interesting claim here. Now, in particle accelerators, particles come very close the speed of light. Since they sometimes move in the same direction as Earth's orbital movement, the resultant speed would be faster than light in a fixed velocity frame.

Bjarne is claiming that we have a fixed velocity frame. Bjarne also claims that particles in an electromagnetic field are somehow not limited by this. So logically, Bjarne claims that in an electromagnetic field, matter can move faster than light. Is that right, Bjarne?

Hans

That's a major issue with a fixed frame of reference, it allows for objects to be accelerated faster than the speed of light.

OK, so is your 'stretched space' "where the pepper grows"?

Word games won't help you.

Perhaps he's been personally testing certain claims about certain kinds of peppers. That could explain a lot.

 

[Reality Check]

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

So where is your memory or the education high school children get, Bjarne - you and high school children know GR works with curvature of spacetime !

 

[Reality Check]

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

Asking a T O T A L L Y D E L U D E D question is not good, Bjarne !
People have been measuring Euclidean geometry for thousands of years using things called rulers.

 

[Bjarne]

Interesting claim here. Now, in particle accelerators, particles come very close the speed of light. Since they sometimes move in the same direction as Earth's orbital movement, the resultant speed would be faster than light in a fixed velocity frame.

Bjarne is claiming that we have a fixed velocity frame. Bjarne also claims that particles in an electromagnetic field are somehow not limited by this. So logically, Bjarne claims that in an electromagnetic field, matter can move faster than light. Is that right, Bjarne?

Hans

No,no, no
You have lean by the thought experiment, that both theories asserts and accept that the speed is always the "same" but not comparable the same..
Remember the ruler is variants, and stretching proportional with time

As you should be able to understand, - light moves the same distance, but the measured time it takes is different for A and B..


‘A’ live in the basement of a skyscraper, ‘B’ at the top of the same building.
Both have measured the time it took a photon to travel 13 billion. from the very first star and to us..
But A’s clock (deeper in the gravitational field) is as we know ticking slower than B’s clock.
B would argue that it took the photon one minute longer to reach us – than the time A has measured. Simply because B’s clock is ticking faster than the A’s watch. The difference is probably in reality less, but it means nothing , its the same point.
We accept that the speed “c” is the same for both A and B.
When both A and B know the time and speed, A and B can only conclude that either the distance to the star that emitted photon is significantly different, which is utopian, because the universe is not likely to change shape depending on the observer who observes a process .
Otherwise, the conclusion can only be that A’s ruler (in the basement) must have changed (been longer) proportional to the time also been stretching, as a result of A’s watch is deeper in the gravitational field.
Only in this way A and B both can assert that ‘c’ is the same for both (even thou ‘c’ is not comparable the "same")

 

[Bjarne]

Asking a T O T A L L Y D E L U D E D question is not good, Bjarne !
People have been measuring Euclidean geometry for thousands of years using things called rulers.

ahhhh
You mean relativistic flexible rulers

 

[Bjarne]

That's a major issue with a fixed frame of reference, it allows for objects to be accelerated faster than the speed of light.
.

No, - true speed of matter is always converted to mass, - which mean matter gets deeper involved in space, and in this process, the ruler is stretching.

The total speed (dark flow) is already transforming our reality, included stretching our rulers, - whereby the speed of Earth, - converts /transforms everything relativistic. This is how speed in a strange process already relativistic "is taken into account"

So when moving opposite dark flow, rulers will be shorter, time will tick slower (not faster) and the speed of light is still the "same" but not comparable the "same.. This is a consequence of speed. -

Therefore the IIS test will demonstrate that only true absolute motion (only true kinetic energy) is a fundamental part of how we percept reality, - quite different as we are used to think..

 

[halleyscomet]

No, - true speed of matter is always converted to mass, - which mean matter gets deeper involved in space, and in this process, the ruler is stretching.

The total speed (dark flow) is already transforming our reality, included stretching our rulers, - whereby the speed of Earth, - converts /transforms everything relativistic. This is how speed in a strange process already relativistic "is taken into account"

So when moving opposite dark flow, rulers will be shorter, time will tick slower (not faster) and the speed of light is still the "same" but not comparable the "same.. This is a consequence of speed. -

Therefore the IIS test will demonstrate that only true absolute motion (only true kinetic energy) is a fundamental part of how we percept reality, - quite different as we are used to think..

That's just using the stretching of the ruler to describe an additional frame of reference, which gets you right back to General Relativity and curved space-time.

Are you putting us on?

Is this a joke?

You're certainly acting like this is all a joke to you. You describe all these fantastical visions of reality and then crush it all by explaining away any possible testable observations. The world you describe functions exactly the same way as the one Einstein and his successors describe it. Even in your discussion of the ISS test you keep mentioning you give excuses for counter-forces that will, in the end, negate any testable effect.

And we KNOW space-time bends because of OBSERVABLE gravitational lensing.we can SEE it happen and you have no alternate explanation beyond lame excuses and insults.

 

[Dancing David]

No,no, no
You have lean by the thought experiment, that both theories asserts and accept that the speed is always the "same" but not comparable the same..
Remember the ruler is variants, and stretching proportional with time

As you should be able to understand, - light moves the same distance, but the measured time it takes is different for A and B..


‘A’ live in the basement of a skyscraper, ‘B’ at the top of the same building.
Both have measured the time it took a photon to travel 13 billion. from the very first star and to us..

Impossible thought experiment is impossible

 

[halleyscomet]

No,no, no
You have lean by the thought experiment, that both theories asserts and accept that the speed is always the "same" but not comparable the same..
Remember the ruler is variants, and stretching proportional with time

As you should be able to understand, - light moves the same distance, but the measured time it takes is different for A and B..


‘A’ live in the basement of a skyscraper, ‘B’ at the top of the same building.
Both have measured the time it took a photon to travel 13 billion. from the very first star and to us..
But A’s clock (deeper in the gravitational field) is as we know ticking slower than B’s clock.
B would argue that it took the photon one minute longer to reach us – than the time A has measured. Simply because B’s clock is ticking faster than the A’s watch. The difference is probably in reality less, but it means nothing , its the same point.
We accept that the speed “c” is the same for both A and B.
When both A and B know the time and speed, A and B can only conclude that either the distance to the star that emitted photon is significantly different, which is utopian, because the universe is not likely to change shape depending on the observer who observes a process .
Otherwise, the conclusion can only be that A’s ruler (in the basement) must have changed (been longer) proportional to the time also been stretching, as a result of A’s watch is deeper in the gravitational field.
Only in this way A and B both can assert that ‘c’ is the same for both (even thou ‘c’ is not comparable the "same")

Are you seriously trying to argue that time dilation doesn't exist?

You do realize that, assuming sufficient accuracy in instrumentation, even without time dilation, A and B in your thought experiment will come up with slightly different numbers because they are, in fact, different distances from the star.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment

The Hafele–Keating experiment was a test of the theory of relativity. In October 1971, Joseph C. Hafele, a physicist, and Richard E. Keating, an astronomer, took four cesium-beam atomic clocks aboard commercial airliners. They flew twice around the world, first eastward, then westward, and compared the clocks against others that remained at the United States Naval Observatory. When reunited, the three sets of clocks were found to disagree with one another, and their differences were consistent with the predictions of special and general relativity.

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/ne...ks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

BOULDER, Colo. – Scientists have known for decades that time passes faster at higher elevations—a curious aspect of Einstein's theories of relativity that previously has been measured by comparing clocks on the Earth's surface and a high-flying rocket.
Now, physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have measured this effect at a more down-to-earth scale of 33 centimeters, or about 1 foot, demonstrating, for instance, that you age faster when you stand a couple of steps higher on a staircase.
Described in the Sept. 24 issue of Science,* the difference is much too small for humans to perceive directly—adding up to approximately 90 billionths of a second over a 79-year lifetime—but may provide practical applications in geophysics and other fields.

 

[Bjarne]

That's just using the stretching of the ruler to describe an additional frame of reference, which gets you right back to General Relativity and curved space-time.

Are you putting us on?

Is this a joke?

You're certainly acting like this is all a joke to you. You describe all these fantastical visions of reality and then crush it all by explaining away any possible testable observations. The world you describe functions exactly the same way as the one Einstein and his successors describe it. Even in your discussion of the ISS test you keep mentioning you give excuses for counter-forces that will, in the end, negate any testable effect.

And we KNOW space-time bends because of OBSERVABLE gravitational lensing.we can SEE it happen and you have no alternate explanation beyond lame excuses and insults.

You still don't get the point
Curvature and stretch is different, go back and read

 

[halleyscomet]

You still don't get the point
Curvature and stretch is different, go back and read

I have been following. You've offered a lot of analogies and ranting, but nothing testable. You can't even describe what you're expecting from the ISS experiment without backtracking out of any testable results.

Describe an experiment we can do to test your theory.

The curvature of space-time is pretty well established by real world experiments and technology. How do you explain gravitational lensing? Can you describe an experiment that would demonstrate that YOUR theory is more accurate than one that necessitates the curvature of space-time?

 

[The Man]

No,no, no
You have lean by the thought experiment, that both theories asserts and accept that the speed is always the "same" but not comparable the same..
Remember the ruler is variants, and stretching proportional with time

As you should be able to understand, - light moves the same distance, but the measured time it takes is different for A and B..


‘A’ live in the basement of a skyscraper, ‘B’ at the top of the same building.
Both have measured the time it took a photon to travel 13 billion. from the very first star and to us..
But A’s clock (deeper in the gravitational field) is as we know ticking slower than B’s clock.
B would argue that it took the photon one minute longer to reach us – than the time A has measured. Simply because B’s clock is ticking faster than the A’s watch. The difference is probably in reality less, but it means nothing , its the same point.
We accept that the speed “c” is the same for both A and B.
When both A and B know the time and speed, A and B can only conclude that either the distance to the star that emitted photon is significantly different, which is utopian, because the universe is not likely to change shape depending on the observer who observes a process .
Otherwise, the conclusion can only be that A’s ruler (in the basement) must have changed (been longer) proportional to the time also been stretching, as a result of A’s watch is deeper in the gravitational field.
Only in this way A and B both can assert that ‘c’ is the same for both (even thou ‘c’ is not comparable the "same")

Again relativity makes no such assertion of "the "same" but not comparable the same.." Don't try to posit your own self-contradictory nonsense onto relativity.

Once again the distance to the star is a ruler. The mean distance from the Earth to the sun is a unit of distance measure called the astronomical unit.


http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/glossary/au.html

Distance is currently defined as how far light travels in a given period of time.

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

So again just by definition the distance is different for the different observers. Also again just in Galilean relativity with fixed rules and clocks the distance between events can vary depending on the frame of reference.

Again "A"'s ruler hasn't changed for "A" it is "B" that measures distances as longer than "A" including what "A" would say is just 1 meter. You seem to be applying "B"'s measure of distance to say that just "A"'s ruler has changed. What of someone higher in the field than "B"? They would say that both "A" and "B" report distances as shorter than they do. Same for someone lower in the field than "A" they would report that both "A" and "B" measure distances a longer than the do. So again just as distances can depend on your frame of reference likewise how you might report the distance measured by others differ for yours can also depend on your frame of reference. Yes you can pick a frame of reference that says "A"'s measure of a meter is longer than yours but you can also pick a reference frame that says "A"'s measure of a meter is shorter than yours, simply becouse distances are relative.

Once again a speed that is the same is, well, comparably the same. It doesn't matter if one travels 1 kilometer in one hour or 100 kilometers in 100 hours the speed is still the same and the relevant distance and times are comparable. You simply asserting that they are "not comparable the "same"" is just you asserting you have no basis to say they are the same. Again do please get back to us when you can at least agree with just yourself. Heck you even know you don't agree with yourself as you put the word same in quotations when you say they aren't comparable and thus not the same.

 

[The Man]

You still don't get the point
Curvature and stretch is different, go back and read

How would you know, you've never worked out the quantitative details of your "stretched space" . Heck, in the calculation you actually do attempt you use an equation derived from a curved space-time metric. So again do please get back to us when you can at least agree with just yourself.

 

[halleyscomet]

How would you know, you've never worked out the quantitative details of your "stretched space" . Heck, in the calculation you actually do attempt you use an equation derived from a curved space-time metric. So again do please get back to us when you can at least agree with just yourself.

Well, remember, WE'RE supposed to do the math to support his conclusions. He's said so. Repeatedly. He even repeatedly mentions the Lorentz transformation, which replies upon curved space-time...

Yeah.

 

[Bjarne]

That's just using the stretching of the ruler to describe an additional frame of reference, which gets you right back to General Relativity and curved space-time.

Are you putting us on?

Is this a joke?

You're certainly acting like this is all a joke to you. You describe all these fantastical visions of reality and then crush it all by explaining away any possible testable observations. The world you describe functions exactly the same way as the one Einstein and his successors describe it. Even in your discussion of the ISS test you keep mentioning you give excuses for counter-forces that will, in the end, negate any testable effect.

And we KNOW space-time bends because of OBSERVABLE gravitational lensing.we can SEE it happen and you have no alternate explanation beyond lame excuses and insults.

You don't understand that at the exact moment you accept that the ruler is a variant, - the theory of relativity is no longer the theory you are used to.
if the ruler is a relativistic proportional variant - acceleration due to gravity will also be a such proportional factor, whereby there are no longer need for the "curvature of space" to explain the perihelion anomaly, or anything else.

 

[The Man]

Well, remember, WE'RE supposed to do the math to support his conclusions. He's said so. Repeatedly. He even repeatedly mentions the Lorentz transformation, which replies upon curved space-time...

Yeah.

Well, evidently since all he is doing is apparently just numerology. No the Lorentz transformation does not rely on curved space-time. The space-time that results (Minkowski space) is pseudo-Euclidean. A generalization of euclidean space-time by the abstraction of the concept of distance (the metric)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_(mathematics)

So while Minkowski space differs from a four dimensional euclidean space time (specifically in how the time dimension is treated) it is still a flat space-time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space#Four-dimensional_Euclidean_spacetime


That's the real funny thing. Other than Bjarne just not being able to assert whether his space is Euclidean or not but droning on and on about the Lorentz transformation. While an implication of just that transformation, the abstraction of the concept of distance, is something he obviously detests.

 

[Bjarne]

Again relativity makes no such assertion of "the "same" but not comparable the same.."

And this is a problem for the old dying theory