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

[Bjarne]

Post your work so we can check it.

I did but you are looking too much trying to find a fly ****

Do not evade the autocensor

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[Bjarne]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12 & Rule 0

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed response to moderated content

 

[Steve001]

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

Neither, it was sardonicism.

 

[Bjarne]

this thread has provided?

Because you don't understand that a worldview must be coherent.
97% of the universe, you dont know what really is

WHY ?

Because something went wrong, and that something is now hard concrete inside the heads of billion of people..

Why not admit your "stretched space" fantasy is a religious belief for you and be done with it?

Because just by changing that little thing, - that even took you long time to realize, - will mean a total new understand of relativity,. - The consequences are that you will now have 100 % understanding of what the universe is about (if you want) - NOT only 3%

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

You will see who is the dum tic tac tic tac....

 

[halleyscomet]

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(sic) 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.

You didn't create a fourth option, you just rephrased #2.

You're asserting that the designers of GPS systems have to compensate for the differences between calculated orbits and observed ones. This would mean if your theory is accurate, GPS systems are ALREADY dedicating computational power to compensate for a glaring flaw in General Relativity. This would mean the people designing, deploying and maintaining these systems are ALREADY aware of the flaws you claim are in General Relativity yet instead of publishing papers on it and becoming megastars in the world of Physics, they remain quiet and secretly compensate for the glaring flaw that could make them legends in their own time.

You also seem to be ignoring the fact that time distortion is the main thing that the GPS satellites need to compensate for.

tl;dr Your assertion means hundreds to thousands of people need to be actively working against their own self-interest for no discernible befit to cover up something which would ultimately save their employers a lot of money if it were generally known.

Notice only a few polar satellits(sic) will have significant anomalies.

Citation needed. What is your evidence for this assertion?

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…

You're ignoring the fact that the increased distance will increase the time dilation impact of General Relativity. The test proves that the equations remain accurate at these larger distances. This is important in part because the orbit of Mercury was such a problem for Newtonian physics. Newton's equations didn't scale to the increased gravity of a body that close to the Sun. The fact that you think the success of GPS systems could somehow negate the value of such a test at further distances from Earth merely demonstrates your general ignorance of general relativity.

 

[halleyscomet]

Because you don't understand that a worldview must be coherent.

Lying about me because I disagree with you is dishonest on your part.

97% of the universe, you dont(sic) know what really is

Isn't it exciting? So many mysteries left in the universe to explore!

WHY ?

/me is breathless with anticipation.

Because something went wrong, and that something is now hard concrete inside the heads of billion of people..

No, they're just not giving the time of day to a slab of fan-fiction spouted off by a demonstrably arrogant individual who BRAGS about being too lazy to do the work needed to provide any EVIDENCE or TESTABLE HYPOTHESIS for his ideas.

Because just by changing that little thing, - that even took you long time to realize, - will mean a total new understand of relativity

Why do you find it so hard to understand that your complete failure to provide testable, quantifiable hypotheses is fatal to anyone accepting your jibber-jabber whargarble? Why do you prefer to spend time ranting about how nobody believes you instead of doing the work to convince anyone?

The consequences are that you will now have 100 % understanding of what the universe is about (if you want) - NOT only 3%

People in this thread have REPEATEDLY told you what you need to do to get the physics community to pay attention to your ideas, and you have REPEATEDLY ignored that advice. I'm not even buying your "lazy" excuse anymore because if you spent your time whipping your post-digestion alphabet soup into a proper theory instead of whining about how nobody believes you here, you could actually make progress, if progress is possible.

You will see who is the dum tic tac tic tac....

You keep typing that as if it has meaning. It doesn't. Even if you're right, you've done none of the work needed to make the physics world aware of it. There's no countdown to a global revelation because you are, by your own admission, too lazy and mathematically ignorant to do the work needed.

You are your own worst enemy Bjarne. Nobody is doing more to thwart and scuttle your ideas than you.

 

[halleyscomet]

I did but you are looking too much trying to find a fly ****

Do not evade the autocensor

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

No, you posted garbage, we reviewed it an pointed out its flaws. Instead of taking the criticism under consideration and re-working your "paper" to take obvious objections into account, you instead whine and rant.

Part of an ACTUAL scientific paper is to anticipate and address the likely and stated objections and problems with the paper's hypothesis. You're getting free peer review and instead of actually updating your paper to take those objections into account, you're sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "LALALALA! I can't hear you! You're a poopie-head for not believing me!!!!"

Your "paper" doesn't even address the ISS test you keep harping about.

You repeatedly and chronically ignore and mock valuable feedback on how you can better propagate your ideas. At this point most of us are only here to watch you repeatedly take aim at your own foot, shoot it, and then whine about how nobody is giving you a marksmanship award for hitting an unscathed target 50 meters away.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
You will see who is the dum tic tac tic tac....

^{Hilite by Daylightstar}
What will we see?
What will the data for 'the experiment' on the ISS, which you believe will support your notions, look like?

For someone claiming to have made a unique and a 100% perfect prediction, you sure have a lot of 'hesitation' in showing what the data from a test on the ISS, which you believe will support your notions, will look like.

In addition to that, for someone who thinks he knows that a 'ruler object' is able to measure distances, you sure have difficulty in explaining how your 'ruler object' is able to measure distances.

 

[Daylightstar]

I did but you are looking too much trying to find a fly ****

Do not evade the autocensor

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

Yep, that was garbage.

E.T.A.: "garbage" refers to the posted 'work' which was claimed to be done with "I did".

 

[Daylightstar]

double

Quick question about this post, Bjarne.

Why did you remove the:

"I made a 100% perfect prediction."​

from that post and replaced it with

"double"​

?

Reality Check's quote of your post captured the "100% perfect prediction.".

I made a 100% perfect prediction.

30 August 2016 Bjarne: A "100% perfect prediction" delusion ...

 

[fuelair]

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

Your English seems to be devolving here - or did someone get your knickers and knackers in a big twist???????

 

[fuelair]

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

not really correct or meaningful.........

 

[fuelair]

odd - duplicate?????????

 

[fuelair]

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

That would cover pretty much all pictures in existence I suspect!!!!!

 

[Daylightstar]

odd - duplicate?????????

Of what?

 

[The Man]

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 ?

?

Again a curved space has well defined properties. By all means please show us the quantitative properties of your 'stretched space' that show whether it is curved or not. Is your claim that you just don't know if your 'stretched space is curved or not?

 

[The Man]

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

Great, as already asserted, then show us quantitatively how "The Lorentz equation" "tells you how much space matter have absorbed".

 

[dasmiller]

I'll concur with halleyscomet's response to Bjarne's post #2960, but I'd typed up my own response:

4.
Measured orbit data are much easier to use, - these are fare from always compared to calculated data,

Again, again, again, this is simply not true. GPS spacecraft predicted positions are continuously compared against their measured positions by dozens of monitor stations around the world.

and even if these always was, anomalies are not scientifically investigated all the time.

But you're talking about multiple 'anomalies' for each spacecraft, every day.

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..

There are many, many scientific papers discussing the impact of space weather and gravitational anomalies on GPS spacecraft. A number of very smart people have dedicated their careers to exactly such subjects.

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.

But how could the computer accurately predict where the spacecraft would be several hours in advance if it was ignoring a significant "dark flow" effect? That's what the GPS control segment does every day for every GPS spacecraft.

Notice only a few polar satellits will have significant anomalies.

GPS orbits are more 'polar' than ISS.

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…

Are you speculating that the magnitude of the 'dark flow' impact is too small to be seen by GPS, but large enough to be seen by ISS or the Galileos? If so, what's your basis for this?

 

[The Man]

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 ?

Again a curved space has well defined properties. Again "How can you be sure that" your "stretching space" isn't curved? Remember a curved path is longer than a straight path.

 

[The Man]

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 ?

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.

Wait so you ask "Tell me more" and then bemoan "This is only words"? If you don't want words then don't ask for them.