• 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.
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...
More ignorance as expected from Bjarne.
The acceleration due to gravity equation is classical Newtonian physics, not GR. It has an invariant r because it uses Euclidean geometry.

There is no acceleration due to gravity in GR :eye-poppi! There are objects following "straight" lines in a curved spacetime. There is a fictitious force of gravity, i.e. a force as if the object path was curved in a flat spacetime.
 
Bjarne said:
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..
Click to expand...

So, I'm forced to conclude that you cannot answer a simple question about your own "theory"?

Bjarne, it doesn't matter one bit whether I understand as much as a word of what you write. I'm asking you a very basic question about your model: Does it imply an absolute velocity frame or not? You cannot have a cosmology model and not be able to answer that question.

Last chance: Yes or no.

Hans
 
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..

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
Click to expand...



I want to thank you for starting this thread. Your profound and chronic ignorance of the physics you're trying to discuss has sparked a lot of educational replies from people who know what they're talking about. I'm learning quite a bit about special and general relativity in this thread from the people who are responding to you.
 
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...

Exactly what you just wrote is the problem with relativity.
If you not can address what will happen to the ruler seen from an overall perspective – the theory of relativity can very easy be pushed into deep trouble..

Let’s call a overall observer C
We assume he can watch A’s and B’s rulers, and compare the size

Will C see A's and B's a rulers is a variants ? -because he can see the length is not comparable the same. ?

According to the prevailing theory of relativity, the answer is NO
According to the MTR, the answer is YES

And exactly that is the Achilles tendon of prevailing theory of relativity.

Kicking that and the whole theory will no longer be the same
 
Bjarne said:
Exactly what you just wrote is the problem with relativity.
If you not can address what will happen to the ruler seen from an overall perspective – the theory of relativity can very easy be pushed into deep trouble..

Let’s call a overall observer C
We assume he can watch A’s and B’s rulers, and compare the size

Will C see A's and B's a rulers is a variants ? -because he can see the length is not comparable the same. ?

According to the prevailing theory of relativity, the answer is NO
According to the MTR, the answer is YES

And exactly that is the Achilles tendon of prevailing theory of relativity.

Kicking that and the whole theory will no longer be the same
Click to expand...

There can never be such a thing as an overall observer without a variable speed of light. All observations are, by their very nature, relative to the observer's position and movement.

Are you postulating that the speed of light in a vacuum can vary from observer to observer? If so, what tests or experiments can you propose to test your theory of a variable speed of light in a vacuum?
 
Bjarne,

The term "Relativity" is being tossed around quite a bit, but it would be helpful if we were all clear on which theory you're discussing and intend to disprove.

Are you talking about General Relativity or Special Relativity?

Your discussion of the curvature of space-time would indicate you're discussing General Relativity, but I'm seeking clarity.
 
Bjarne said:
Exactly what you just wrote is the problem with relativity.
If you not can address what will happen to the ruler seen from an overall perspective – the theory of relativity can very easy be pushed into deep trouble..

Let’s call a overall observer C
We assume he can watch A’s and B’s rulers, and compare the size

Will C see A's and B's a rulers is a variants ? -because he can see the length is not comparable the same. ?

According to the prevailing theory of relativity, the answer is NO
According to the MTR, the answer is YES

And exactly that is the Achilles tendon of prevailing theory of relativity.

Kicking that and the whole theory will no longer be the same
Click to expand...

I've covered that already...

The Man said:
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.
Click to expand...


However, you should note that "C" is not an "overall observer" but just a third observer (or more specifically a third reference frame). For SR, due to the symmetry, what "C" would say about either "A"s or "B"s measurements of space and time "A" and "B" will also say the same for "C"s measurements. Each will see the others distances as contracted and times as dilated. For GR that symmetry is broken and each will report the inverse of the others perception of their measurements. Also you should note, as mentioned before, that it is not "A"s, "B"s or "C"s rulers or clocks that vary for them. It is the other observer that measures distance and times as different including the rulers and clocks of some other reference frame. Once again your evident failure to understand relativity (apparently even just Galilean relativity), even though it has been explained to you multiple times, is not a failure or "Achilles tendon" of relativity.
 
I'm picturing Bjarne waving his Nobel prize, as he sneers at all us little people who did not buy his unsupported, non-mathematical, unscientific flashes of wind.
 
halleyscomet said:
There can never be such a thing as an overall observer without a variable speed of light.
Click to expand...
Why do you think so

Are you postulating that the speed of light in a vacuum can vary from observer to observer? If so, what tests or experiments can you propose to test your theory of a variable speed of light in a vacuum?
Click to expand...

All will measure the "same" speed of light based on local rulers, but that speed and these rulers are not comparable the same.
 
Last edited:
halleyscomet said:
Bjarne,

The term "Relativity" is being tossed around quite a bit, but it would be helpful if we were all clear on which theory you're discussing and intend to disprove.

Are you talking about General Relativity or Special Relativity?

Your discussion of the curvature of space-time would indicate you're discussing General Relativity, but I'm seeking clarity.
Click to expand...

Both, because both gravity (mass) and relativistic mass, will transform the local environment.
 
The Man said:
I've covered that already........

However, you should note that "C" is not an "overall observer" but just a third observer (or more specifically a third reference frame).
Click to expand...
Not necessarily
C could be infinitely far away and at rest. Such a concept is already used in theoretical science.

For SR, due to the symmetry, what "C" would say about either "A"s or "B"s measurements of space and time "A" and "B" will also say the same for "C"s measurements. Each will see the others distances as contracted and times as dilated. For GR that symmetry is broken and each will report the inverse of the others perception of their measurements. Also you should note, as mentioned before, that it is not "A"s, "B"s or "C"s rulers or clocks that vary for them. It is the other observer that measures distance and times as different including the rulers and clocks of some other reference frame. Once again your evident failure to understand relativity (apparently even just Galilean relativity), even though it has been explained to you multiple times, is not a failure or "Achilles tendon" of relativity.
Click to expand...
Just use the the skyscraper experiment, then you will see there are no more logical significant implications to worry about, C is now your own logical sense
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
No it demonstrable missing logic ...
Click to expand...
You mean, missing knowledge and base insights from your side.

Bjarne said:
... missing ability to stand up and fight for what you believe in.
Click to expand...
You indeed do not have that ability. Simply by virtue of you having no insights and no knowledge whatsoever. Apparently not even at base level.

Unless you call running away from or avoiding particular questions 'fighting for what you believe in', of course that way your belief lives longer.

Protect your belief by turning away from the question of present unintelligible nonsense as a reply.
That what you are all about.

You may try to answer the following question, as asked earlier:
What will the data for 'the experiment' on the ISS look like?
 
I do find it telling that Bjarne avoids to answer a simple and straight-forward question about his precious thesis. Apparently, he realizes that he cannot defend it.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
I do find it telling that Bjarne avoids to answer a simple and straight-forward question about his precious thesis. Apparently, he realizes that he cannot defend it.

Hans
Click to expand...

You don't understand that speed is relative different, rulers too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom