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

[The Man]

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.

Again stop lying, relativity includes the fact that different observers can measure distances (which include rulers as they are just something of some distance) differently. You don't understand that all you are asserting is that you simply do not know what you are talking about. As you have been advised of this multiple times before your continued insistence that what relativity explicitly includes somehow changes it is just a deliberate lie.

 

[Daylightstar]

... Don't try to posit your own self-contradictory nonsense onto relativity.
...

Bjarne is attempting to appropriate relativity as if (most of) the mathematics (work done by others) involved actually supports his own irrational notions.
Hence his proclamations that the math is already done.

He is trying to 'steal' the actual work done by others.

 

[Daylightstar]

... distances (which include rulers as they are just something of some distance) ...

To Bjarne, as per his non existent knowledge of relativity, "ruler' is just a relativity buzzword he doesn't actually understand.

 

[The Man]

And this is a problem for the old dying theory

Being self-consistent is not a problem for any theory. While the lack of just self-consistency is a major problem for your assertions.

 

[The Man]

To Bjarne, as per his non existent knowledge of relativity, "ruler' is just a relativity buzzword he doesn't actually understand.

Yep the words like the math are just strange mysterious magical symbols. You just have to put them in the right order and then, poof, genius.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
He is trying to 'steal' the actual work done by others.

I thought something similar was mentioned before, and it was:

... Stop trying to steal the work of others. ...

Since he can't do any work himself, he has no choice but to steal other people's work:

Rubbish.
You 'modeled' your 'illustration' on someone else's illustration which you posted earlier.
Essentially, you steal other people's work and attempt to change it into a consequence of your own 'theory', which is not an actual theory anyway.

It can not and will likely not change.

It certainly hasn't changed yet. Sorry halleyscomet , nothing new yet, it's still the same schpiel

 

[Daylightstar]

Yep the words like the math are just strange mysterious magical symbols. You just have to put them in the right order and then, poof, genius.

Grammatically in the right order

 

[Daylightstar]

And this is a problem for the old dying theory

Relativity is pretty useful and there's no sign of it braking up.

 

[The Man]

I thought something similar was mentioned before, and it was:

Hey stop trying to steal the, well, non-work of others!!!!

 

[Daylightstar]

And this is a problem for the old dying theory

Curving space yes, curving space no.
Like your 'Space Vacuum Theory', your stretching space while asking for evidence of euclidean geometry and rejecting euclidean geometry ....... tearjerkingly hilarious.

Putting the euclidean geometry where no grass can grow will block the pathway for all your uninformed 'theories'.
Hmmm, now there's an idea

 

[Daylightstar]

Hey stop trying to steal the, well, non-work of others!!!!

Ruler.

 

[The Man]

Ruler.

That's variant ruler to you.

 

[Daylightstar]

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

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
If only your schpiel with 'theories' was a variant .....

 

[Daylightstar]

That's variant ruler to you.

Is it only the length of the ruler that is variant, or is the width a variant as well.
If so, can a ruler become longer and less wide at the same time, well outside strong gravity influences?
If not, why not?

 

[halleyscomet]

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.

Rulers can be variant in relativity. I explained this a few pages back when I restated the Ladder paradox using Smoots. Several of Einstein's thought experiments describe things like measuring rods being variant.

If you think rulers being variant somehow breaks relativity, then you're missing the entire point of relativity. You have no bloody clue what you're talking about.

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 impact gravity has on accelerating matter is one of the reasons we NEED the curvature of space-time to explain observable reality.

You're taking things that support the idea of curved space-time and declaring, "nuh-uh! They prove its NOT curved!" The lack of understanding is not ours, it's yours. You're essentially claiming that 2+2=4 means that 4-2 cannot POSSIBLY be 2. You're claiming that the video footage of Rodney King being beaten proves he was never touched by the police. You're claiming that your ability to use your computer to read the words I've written is proof your electricity is out.

 

[MRC_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..

How does this even come close to answering my post?

OK, baby steps:

Do you claim that the velocity reference frame is universal?

Yes or no?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

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.

Sorry, late reaction: Thank you. It is a glass sculpture in a Danish museum (my own photo). Yeah, that's a good interpretation of it.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Again stop lying, relativity includes the fact that different observers can measure distances (which include rulers as they are just something of some distance) differently. .

Its not "just"
But "why" are distance different

This forum https://www.physicsforums.com is the "best" science education forum in USA, - read for your self, None of the Mentors like that rulers even is suggested to be variants.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-the-speed-of-light-always-299-792-458-m-s.655380/

 

[Bjarne]

How does this even come close to answering my post?

OK, baby steps:

Do you claim that the velocity reference frame is universal?

Yes or no?

Hans

I can see that relativity is too much for you

 

[The Man]

Is it only the length of the ruler that is variant, or is the width a variant as well.
If so, can a ruler become longer and less wide at the same time, well outside strong gravity influences?
If not, why not?

Depends on how it is moving for just SR let's say. If moving at an oblique angle it can have different components of velocity in the length and width directions. If moving sideways the length contraction is just in the width direction.

GRs a bit different as being stationary in the gravitational field is an accelerated frame. If I remember correctly a far removed observer will report distances radial to the source of the field as measuring longer while circumferences as being shorter as field intensity increases. I could be wrong though.