• 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:
You have the math to calculate SR time dilation
Now when moving north just replace the -(minus) with the plus (+) - this is a kindergarten lesson

More help here

http://study.com/articles/Kindergarten_Teacher_Requirements_for_Teaching_Kindergarten.html
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think anyone is surprised.

Bjarne:

The time dilation equation gives a proportion. To reverse that proportion you need to take the multiplicative inverse not the additive inverse.

Is that why you subtract from one for the first value on your chart? If it is then it is even more wrong as the additive inverse of a number when added to that number equals 0 not 1. There is probably a name for such numbers that add to one but I haven't been able to find it.



More help here

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


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Additive_inverse
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
Tons of evidence. It's in those books you neglected to read.
Click to expand...
Lies

Tons of speculation

(Black holes.) Observations fit the theory.
Click to expand...

Nothing but speculation

( Gravitational lensing.) And a lot of observations. Photos, too.
Click to expand...

Nothing but speculation, and photos that are nothing but optical disturbances.
No lensing is found in other frequencies.

AH, the electric universe guy. I'd like to see him explain those photos.
Click to expand...
Lie
 
To every ISF member who has posted here, other than Bjarne: why do you continue to post here?

As I am one such, the answer is that I don't, any more. I satisfied myself that the Bjarne ideas posted cannot be tested in a scientific manner (or, they have been tested, and shown to be, well, nonsense). And that Bjarne cannot or will not address any of the challenges to his ideas (as posted), at least not in a way that comports with the Science nature of this part of ISF.

Yes, sometimes reading posts here is entertaining; I have learned some new, interesting things, thanks to my fellow ISF members; etc. But posting takes time and effort, so what's the return?
 
JeanTate said:
To every ISF member who has posted here, other than Bjarne: why do you continue to post here?
Click to expand...

I see little hope of convincing Bjarne, but there are innocent people out there who don't have much scientific background, and it would bother me to think that they might stumble across a thread like this and see something like Bjarne's ideas being promulgated unchallenged.

Also, I suspect that Bjarne would view our silence as a victory for him.

It's not a very satisfying rationale. Or thread.
 
JeanTate said:
To every ISF member who has posted here, other than Bjarne: why do you continue to post here?

As I am one such, the answer is that I don't, any more. I satisfied myself that the Bjarne ideas posted cannot be tested in a scientific manner (or, they have been tested, and shown to be, well, nonsense). And that Bjarne cannot or will not address any of the challenges to his ideas (as posted), at least not in a way that comports with the Science nature of this part of ISF.

Yes, sometimes reading posts here is entertaining; I have learned some new, interesting things, thanks to my fellow ISF members; etc. But posting takes time and effort, so what's the return?
Click to expand...

I've got the time and the only effort is in learning from the other posters or reviewing and getting links for my own posts. As Bjarne's shtick just contradicts itself, that actually takes the least time and effort simply pointing out those contradictions. So the return is I get to learn stuff or try to explain things in different ways which also helps me to learn stuff.
 
JeanTate said:
To every ISF member who has posted here, other than Bjarne: why do you continue to post here?

As I am one such, the answer is that I don't, any more. I satisfied myself that the Bjarne ideas posted cannot be tested in a scientific manner (or, they have been tested, and shown to be, well, nonsense). And that Bjarne cannot or will not address any of the challenges to his ideas (as posted), at least not in a way that comports with the Science nature of this part of ISF.

Yes, sometimes reading posts here is entertaining; I have learned some new, interesting things, thanks to my fellow ISF members; etc. But posting takes time and effort, so what's the return?
Click to expand...

Touché. I asked the same question in another thread by Kyon. Answers will probably be the same, here: For the fun, for the lurkers, and such. I suppose it is also nice to feel a bit superior, which is so easy with posters who insist on brandishing their complete lack of ... anything.

Hans
 
Bjarne said:
Tons of speculation
Nothing but speculation
Click to expand...

Since you haven't read the evidence, you can't say.

Nothing but speculation, and photos that are nothing but optical disturbances.
No lensing is found in other frequencies.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Gamma range:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/311868/meta
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/319027/meta
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v393/n6687/abs/393763a0.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1993ApJ...414...36N

Radio range:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/305207/meta
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/300724/meta

Oh Bjarne, making things up as you go makes you such an easy target.

Hans
 
JeanTate said:
... But posting takes time and effort, so what's the return?
Click to expand...
It takes time and effort to show the infuriating stupidity that unfortunately still does exist. The propagator of said stupidity will almost always comply.
It is also a good exercise in restraint. Trying not to get too upset by realization of the unworthiness of the proponent of infuriating stupidity.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Since you haven't read the evidence, you can't say.

Wrong.

Gamma range:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/311868/meta
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/319027/meta
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v393/n6687/abs/393763a0.html
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1993ApJ...414...36N

Radio range:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/305207/meta
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/300724/meta

Oh Bjarne, making things up as you go makes you such an easy target.

Hans
Click to expand...

Try instead to quote one single postulate saying that gravitational lensing is found at other frequencies as visible light... Instead of a load of BS / BW links.. I think you cannot

According the former astrophysicist Edward Dowdye such lensing is never proven.

Notice i believe gravity will have a magnifying glass effect, - but not very extreme

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=6kJ8gTdOsek
 
Last edited:
dasmiller said:
... but there are innocent people out there who don't have much scientific background, and it would bother me to think that they might stumble across a thread like this and see something like Bjarne's ideas being promulgated unchallenged.
...
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure that many innocent people will fall for Bjarne's ideas. I mean, his whole presentation screams pathological failure. Some may even think that the combination with lack of responses might be a good signal to let's say, have a look elsewhere.

dasmiller said:
...
Also, I suspect that Bjarne would view our silence as a victory for him.
...
Click to expand...
As far as I'm concerned, he can have his private 'victory' party. It would be as inert as his ideas.

There are people with radical or outlandish ideas which appear more, much much more convincing, on the surface.
Bjarne's presentation? It's basically a joke.
 
Daylightstar said:
I'm not so sure that many innocent people will fall for Bjarne's ideas. I mean, his whole presentation screams pathological failure. Some may even think that the combination with lack of responses might be a good signal to let's say, have a look elsewhere.


As far as I'm concerned, he can have his private 'victory' party. It would be as inert as his ideas.

There are people with radical or outlandish ideas which appear more, much much more convincing, on the surface.
Bjarne's presentation? It's basically a joke.
Click to expand...

I trust he has many private "victory" parties with himself!!
 
Bjarne said:
Try instead to quote one single postulate saying that gravitational lensing is found at other frequencies as visible light... Instead of a load of BS / BW links.. I think you cannot
Click to expand...


A little time and even less effort...

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

Gravitational lenses act equally on all kinds of electromagnetic radiation, not just visible light. Weak lensing effects are being studied for the cosmic microwave background as well as galaxy surveys. Strong lenses have been observed in radio and x-ray regimes as well. If a strong lens produces multiple images, there will be a relative time delay between two paths: that is, in one image the lensed object will be observed before the other image.
Click to expand...


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/quasar.html#c3


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/glens.html
 
Bjarne said:
Try instead to quote one single postulate saying that gravitational lensing is found at other frequencies as visible light... Instead of a load of BS / BW links.. I think you cannot
Click to expand...

All the links I gave you explain examples of other frequencies. Read them; I have no duty to do your homework for you.

According the former astrophysicist Edward Dowdye such lensing is never proven.
Click to expand...

The electric universe fellow. Be careful who you associate with. Electric Universe people are NOT your friends.

Notice i believe gravity will have a magnifying glass effect, - but not very extreme
Click to expand...

Make your mind up, Bjarne: Is gravitational lensing a fact or not? You can't have it both ways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=6kJ8gTdOsek
Click to expand...

SO, it's OK for YOU to link youtube stuff, but not for me to link to scientific articles? ... Get your act together man! You are a disgrace!

Hans
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom