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

[Bjarne]

Energy density (matter) can curve spacetime in it's vicinity, which' curved spacetime acts similarly to a concave lens, though not in exactly the same way.
Curved spacetime is the lens.

How can Energy Density matter curve space ? - Tell me more about the process..

How can you be sure that what you believe is curved space, in reality not is stretching space ?

 

[Perpetual Student]

How can Energy Density matter curve space ? - Tell me more about the process..

The curvature of spacetime due to a mass/energy source is modeled by the GR tensor equation. I suggest you study general relativity to understand this relationship. Perhaps then you may not be so confused.

How can you be sure that what you believe is curved space, in reality not is stretching space ?

What exactly is the difference between curving space and stretching space? In the GR tensor equation, curvature of space due to a mass/energy source is described by the Ricci curvature tensor. How is your "stretching space" described mathematically?

 

[BazBear]

If photons really are changing path because of the "deformation of space" , - how can you know that photons did that ;

• because space was curved ?
• or they did so because space was stretching ?

?

Call it curved, call it stretched, call it Bob for all I care; all I know is that the predictions made mathematically using GR match both the results of experiments and observations.

 

[Bjarne]

Call it curved, call it stretched, call it Bob for all I care; all I know is that the predictions made mathematically using GR match both the results of experiments and observations.

No Bob results in one single postulate, that this ""should"" solve the perihelion anomaly.. It doesn't

 

[Bjarne]

What exactly is the difference between curving space and stretching space? In the GR tensor equation, curvature of space due to a mass/energy source is described by the Ricci curvature tensor. How is your "stretching space" described mathematically?

The Lorentz equation is enough, that tells you how much space matter have absorbed.

 

[Bjarne]

The curvature of spacetime due to a mass/energy source is modeled by the GR tensor equation. I suggest you study general relativity to understand this relationship. Perhaps then you may not be so confused.
?

This is only words, you could also have wrote; - bob bob bob bob, this also tells nothing about the nature of how space and matter is connected.

 

[halleyscomet]

What will you call it when you soon will see that it was all wrong..

People is accepting this illogical nonsense not because ít's logic, but only so that they will not look stupid in other eyes.



Group pressure it part of the poison that made it possible to involve the entire human face. Soon we (almost) all one day can say, - ohh my good we where all victims

Lying about the evidence is not the same thing as trying to actually counter it. "You're stupid for believing what everyone else believes!" Is not a coherent argument.

This is not a grade school playground. You do not "win" an argument about science by babbling about how the concepts being discussed are beyond your comprehension. All you're doing is making yourself look poorly educated. Is that your goal? Is your ultimate agenda to make the education system in your homeland look inept?

 

[halleyscomet]

If photons really are changing path because of the "deformation of space" , - how can you know that photons did that ;

• because space was curved ?
  
• or they did so because space was stretching ?
  

?

You've been given a number of resources to address that very topic and your response was to dismiss them unread with the single word, "crap." You've made it crystal clear you have no intention of paying any attention to evidence contrary to your science themed fan-fiction. Why do you still ask for evidence when you've repeatedly ignored the evidence this thread has provided?

Why not admit your "stretched space" fantasy is a religious belief for you and be done with it? Why lie and slander others by accusing them of having a religious faith in science and mathematics when it is you who is operating religiously?

 

[halleyscomet]

The Lorentz equation is enough, that tells you how much space matter have absorbed.

If it's enough then show us an example.

Use it to explain the orbit of Mercury.

Use it to explain the observations of gravitational lending.

Oh, wait, you tried that with your little spreadsheet. You proved you really DO have a kindergarten comprehension of math, just like you keep claiming.

 

[Bjarne]

If it's enough then show us an example.

Use it to explain the orbit of Mercury.

I did, radius is shorther by perihelion (as expected), this mean stronger gravity and therefore faster orbit speed when approaching perihelion.

 

[halleyscomet]

The curvature of spacetime due to a mass/energy source is modeled by the GR tensor equation. I suggest you study general relativity to understand this relationship. Perhaps then you may not be so confused.

What exactly is the difference between curving space and stretching space? In the GR tensor equation, curvature of space due to a mass/energy source is described by the Ricci curvature tensor. How is your "stretching space" described mathematically?

It's not described mathematically. He's openly mocked the notion of doing the math to support his ideas as being the easy part. His actual descriptions of his fan-fiction describe stretched space as operating pretty much identically to curved space, with the exception of there being no gravitational lensing and of objects in orbit supposedly going slightly faster than expected when in a north/south orbit. He waffles on if the change in speed would be detectable or if it would be canceled out by other forces.

In sort, he's provided no real math to support his fan-fiction and the only two predictions his model makes have already been destroyed by actual observation.

 

[halleyscomet]

I did, radius is shorther by perihelion (as expected), this mean stronger gravity and therefore faster orbit speed when approaching perihelion.

Post your work so we can check it.

 

[halleyscomet]

Why do you keep dodging this question?

Are you ashamed of the answer?

The fact remains, if your ideas had any foundation in reality, GPS satellite design, programming, operation and maintenance would have to take them into account.

The fact that GPS satellites work leaves you with the following options:

1: You are wrong and need to go back to the drawing board.

2: GPS satellites DON'T really work and there's a grand conspiracy to create the illusion that they do.

3: GPS satellite designers, programmers and operators ALREADY know you're right, have taken your ideas into account when designing the satellites and their support systems and are inexplicably keeping it a secret instead of publishing research and experimental evidence that would put their names on par with Einstein and Newton in the history books.

Which of those three options seems most likely to you?

 

[Steve001]

Answer this, Bjarne. And tell us that is in this picture:


Hans

You know that's a Photoshop image?

 

[Steve001]

Of course not, it will prove to him that the real scientists coming up with all the stuff he cannot learn/does not make any sense to him are still ganging up on him because He Knows The Truth!!!!!!!

By the looks of it, Bjarne has already fallen apart a very long time ago.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0

 

[halleyscomet]

You know that's a Photoshop image?

/me starts "Crocodile Hunter" impression
Crikey! That's a pretty good first salvo in dismissing the image as evidence of gravitational lensing. Unless the image is an actual telescope photo, then the best retort will be to defend it as a composite image, and not wholly fabricated. Whatever happens next, that's just an Hors d'oeuvre to the main event, will Bjarne come up with a response to the image even halfway as effective?

I'm tellin' ya, I'm on tenterhooks waiting to see what happens next.

/me ends "Crocodile Hunter" impression

 

[John Nowak]

You know that's a Photoshop image?

Is that based on anything, or is it just your defense mechanism when you see a picture you don't understand?

 

[Daylightstar]

If photons really are changing path because of the "deformation of space" , - how can you know that photons did that ;

• because space was curved ?
• or they did so because space was stretching ?

?

Answer these questions you've been ignoring, first:

What exactly will we see?

what will the data for 'the experiment' on the ISS, which you believe will support your notions, look like?​

And:

Bjarne, [URL="http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11473026&postcount=2799"]how[/URL] is your 'ruler object' able to measure distances?

 

[Daylightstar]

How can Energy Density matter curve space ? - Tell me more about the process..

How can you be sure that what you believe is curved space, in reality not is stretching space ?

Answer the two outstanding questions as mentioned above.

 

[Bjarne]

Whatever you were trying to say with that response, the fact remains, if your ideas had any foundation in reality, GPS satellite design, programming, operation and maintenance would have to take them into account.

The fact that GPS satellites work leaves you with the following options:

1: You are wrong and need to go back to the drawing board.

2: GPS satellites DON'T really work and there's a grand conspiracy to create the illusion that they do.

3: GPS satellite designers, programmers and operators ALREADY know you're right, have taken your ideas into account when designing the satellites and their support systems and are inexplicably keeping it a secret instead of publishing research and experimental evidence that would put their names on par with Einstein and Newton in the history books.

Which of those three options seems most likely to you?

4.
Measured orbit data are much easier to use, - these are fare from always compared to calculated data, and even if these always was, anomalies are not scientifically investigated all the time.

The GPS team know there often are serveral anomalies, but the cause of these are never perfectly scientifically addressed, which mean whether these are caused by space weather, gravitational anomalies of the Earth, - pertubations etc..

A computer can fast , easy and automatically calculate the daily deviation and many times each day even automatically counteract the time dilation, even without asking anybody.

Notice only a few polar satellits will have significant anomalies.

If GPS really was such perfect scientific test system as you believe it is, GPS test onboard ISS and Galileo 5 & 6 would not be necessary…