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

This is not a issue, - But only "r" (radius) in the equation ADG = MG/r^2 is important to worry about.

If "r" is a GR-variant ADG is also a relativistic variant.
 
Bjarne said:
I can see that relativity is too much for you
Click to expand...

Wait, what? You have clearly demonstrated that not only do you have no understanding of the maths, but that you do not understand the concepts in your posts in this very thread. Somehow, you feel free to accuse others of not understanding a theory which you have not even read. How does that work?
 
Bjarne said:
Its not "just"
But "why" are distance different
Click to expand...

Again it is how distance is defined, as how far light travels in some period of time.


Bjarne said:
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/
Click to expand...

First off, who cares what your disagreement on some other forum was?

Second you have already said here that it was, and you assert here as well, that it's not just varying rulers but your claim that varying rulers makes relativity different. Stop pretending that you aren't or haven't been saying exactly that.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Answer the question. I'm asking about what YOU claim. Surely you know what your own claim is, right?

Hans
Click to expand...

You did not understand what I wrote, so it is difficult to continue...,

REPEAT copy ..paste...

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.. e..
 
The Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

:D

That's what I get for asking the right person, should have asked the wrong person :D
 
The Man said:
Again it is how distance is defined, as how far light travels in some period of time.
Click to expand...

No it is not, because the ruler is defined relative to c
And as you should have understood, c is the same for all obervers but not comparable the same.
And so are rulers, - but before reaching that level the chain already went off for you..

Edith
If A and B would shout and reflect a laser beam on the moon, they would not measure the same distance
Because
1.) They measure time different
2.) They also measure 1 meter different.
3.) c appears to be the "same" for A and B but it is not comparable the same, - it cannot be so..
4.) Therefore the distance to the moon is different for A and B
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
...
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.. e..
Click to expand...

It's ISS by the way, sorry you can't even get that right.
Can you tell us what the data on that will look like?
 
Bjarne: The abysmal ignorance of Euclidean geometry being relativistic

Bjarne said:
You mean relativistic flexible rulers
Click to expand...
I mean yet another display of abysmal ignorance, Bjarne.
There is no "relativistic" in Euclidean geometry :eye-poppi. Classical, non-relativistic physics as written by Galileo, Newton, etc. uses Euclidean geometry. Special relativity uses Minkowski geometry.

2 September 2016 Bjarne: The abysmal ignorance of Euclidean geometry being relativistic.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
No it is not, because the ruler is defined relative to c
And as you should have understood, c is the same for all obervers but not comparable the same.
And so are rulers, - but before reaching that level the chain already went off for you..
Click to expand...

Seriously?!?! Are your deliberately being dense? c is how far light travel per unit time. It might help if when you say "No it is not" that you then proceed with something that actually counters the assertion and not just confirms it.
 
Bjarne: Delusions about "true speed" and speed being converted to mass

Bjarne said:
No, - true speed of matter is always converted to mass,...gibberish snipped...
Click to expand...
2 September 2016 Bjarne: Delusions about "true speed" and speed being converted to mass.

Mass in special relativity is not converted from speed. Relativistic objects do not slow down as speed is removed to become mass!
 
Bjarne: Lies about SR or GR being a dying theory and a problem

Bjarne said:
And this is a problem for the old dying theory
Click to expand...
2 September 2016 Bjarne: Lies about SR or GR being a dying theory and a "problem" - your ignorance and delusions about SR and GR do not have any effect on science.
 
Bjarne whining about the word "ruler" just shows how ignorant of SR and GR he is determined to be.
For an observer, a ruler or clock is invariant. Their ruler always has the same length. Their click always ticks along at 1 second per second.

What SR and GR state is that measurements taken by that observer with their invariant ruler and clock of an object will change according to their velocity relative to the object and the relative gravitational fields. For example they can measure with their invariant ruler and clock that the objects length has contracted.

Another observer with their own invariant ruler and clock can look at the first observer and measure that the observers ruler and clock are length contracted and time dilated. This has no physical effect for the first observer on their ruler and clock - they are still invariant.
 
Reality Check said:
Bjarne whining about the word "ruler" just shows how ignorant of SR and GR he is determined to be.
For an observer, a ruler or clock is invariant. Their ruler always has the same length. Their click always ticks along at 1 second per second.

What SR and GR state is that measurements taken by that observer with their invariant ruler and clock of an object will change according to their velocity relative to the object and the relative gravitational fields. For example they can measure with their invariant ruler and clock that the objects length has contracted.

Another observer with their own invariant ruler and clock can look at the first observer and measure that the observers ruler and clock are length contracted and time dilated. This has no physical effect for the first observer on their ruler and clock - they are still invariant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've tried to point this out to Bjarne before that an observers rulers and clocks do not vary for them. They are always at rest with their rulers and clock as that is what defines them as their rulers and clocks. What will vary is what different observers will report as the spatial and temporal coordinates of events. Like the ends of some other frame's rulers or the ticks of some other frame's clocks. So it is just some other observer in some other frame that sees your rulers or clocks as different when compared to theirs.
 
Bjarne said:
I can see that relativity is too much for you
Click to expand...



You're about as qualified to make that statement as I am to lecture people on the intricacies of brain surgery. (Hint, I'm a DBA and computer programmer, not a brain surgeon.)
 
Bjarne said:
This is not a issue, - But only "r" (radius) in the equation ADG = MG/r^2 is important to worry about.



If "r" is a GR-variant ADG is also a relativistic variant.
Click to expand...


Let me get this straight.

You're trying to use Newtonian motion equations to disprove the curvature of space-time in General Relativity.

Is that an accurate assessment?
 
I'll check in again after Tuesday 4 October, 11:45 am, when The Nobel Prize in Physics will be announced. Enjoy your fame Bjarne.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom