wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,288
If you have exact formulae then let us examine them, otherwise you have nothing of any scientific value.None og the formulars are perfect, just rough approximations.
If you have exact formulae then let us examine them, otherwise you have nothing of any scientific value.None og the formulars are perfect, just rough approximations.
None og the formulars are perfect, just rough approximations.
"Rough" is a bit of an understatement.None og the formulars are perfect, just rough approximations.
As has been noted previously, several of Bjarne's units are nonsense. As will be shown below, I believe his result (which I highlighted in blue) is off by more than two orders of magnitude.The following equation will shows you the relativistic stretch of space: 1/sqrt(1-2GM/(rc^2)
At the surface of the Syn u get 1/sqrt(1-2*6.67e-11*2e30/(7e8*3e8^2) = 1.000002117467 meter ( a stretch inwards to the sun at 0.000002117467 meter )
This is a ratio that shows how much space is stretched a given place.
In this case, as mentioned on the surface of the sun.
It is very likely that when matter pulls / stretches space, also light that moves in the space, - will follow.
Therefore, regardless of whether the path where the light travels will be 1mm, 1 meter or 1 light year, - then the ratio of the deflection will be the same, (assuming the data of equations are the same all the way.)
Therefore just past the sun the total reflection will be (only) 7e8m x 0.00000211m = 1477 meter
As you can see , this is insignificant , as I told you even before calculating.
As noted above in my item 4, this "corrected" formula yields an area, not a distance.
Correction
The last equation is obviously wrong. (because then the deflection angle is the same regardless if the travel distance near an objekt is 1 meter or 1 LY )
Hence the equation must not be DxDA
D = distance near the astronomic object
DA = deflection angle
But of course D2xDA
As noted in a previous post, 7e8m is already the radius, so dividing it in half would be incorrect according to Bjarne's own explanation of whatever it is he thinks he's doing here.Read my previous post
The last equation DxDA is of course obvious wrong
D = distance near the astronomic object
DA = deflection angle
D must of course be: D2xDA
Otherwise the travel length near the astronomical object (sun galaxy etc) would give you the same angle, - regardless if the travel-path is 1mm - 1meter og 1 LY. Hence D2
Furthermore the travel distance is based on the whole path light travel near the sun (diameter of the sun) , if you want only the inwards deflection, for ex sample : towards earth-direction, - you must only use radius (which mean ) the half travel distance, - and hence not 7E8m but the half.
When we saw Bjarne write "deflection angle", we should have known he wasn't talking about the deflection angle, and it's entirely our fault that we read what he wrote instead of guessing he really meant something other than what he wrote.I off course mean DR ( Deflection Ratio) and this is also how my calculation is done.
I NEVER used the reflection angle in any calculation, and even never calculated that angle, and you KNOW that
If Bjarne's obvious errors were merely typos, why did he continue to repeat the same obvious errors?Read the content of EQUATION above Kart Smart before bla bla bla bla too much
I used the deflection ratio in the equation, can you REALLY now see that ?
You are trying to get caught up in obvious typos
For small values of ε, sqrt(1-2ε) ≈ (1-ε), and 1/(1-ε) ≈ 1+ε, soThe following equation will shows you the relativistic stretch of space: 1/sqrt(1-2GM/(rc^2)
After that subtraction, Bjarne's "ratio that shows how much space is stretched a given place" is very well approximated by GM/(rc^2).At the surface of the Syn u get 1/sqrt(1-2*6.67e-11*2e30/(7e8*3e8^2) = 1.000002117467 meter ( a stretch inwards to the sun at 0.000002117467 meter )
This is a ratio that shows how much space is stretched a given place.
td*dr
Which mean : 1.185e9 x0.00000211 = 2500 meter
- td=travel distance near the astronomic object
- dr=deflection ration (in this case of the surface of the sun)
\
\
\ <-- ray of light coming from a faraway star
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
+\
+\
+ \ /
+ \ /
+ \ /
+ \ /
+ \ /
+ \ /
+ \ /
+ \ /
edge of sun -->)A------X
+ / \
+ / \
+ / \
+ / \
+ / \
+ / \
+ / \
+ / \
+/ Z
+/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ <-- bent ray of light going to earth
/
Y
edge of sun -->)A------X
+ / \
+ / \
+ / \
+ / \
+ / \
+ / \
+ / \
+ / \
+/ Z
+/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ <-- bent ray of light going to earth
/
Y
That formula is of course equivalent to 90*60*60*(dd/r). If Bjarne's dd corresponds to my a above, which is my guess, then Bjarne's dd/r corresponds to a/r. I suspect, however, that Bjarne has once again written r (the radius of the sun) where he meant to write the distance from sun to earth, in which case Bjarne's dd/r corresponds to myTry this 90*60*60/(r/dd) ---- dd = deflection distance near the object, what do you think you get then ?
Bjarne, can't you see how ridiculous you appear? You present formulas, then when people point out faults you modify them, and when they point out more faults, you end up saying they're rough modifikations. In other words, you don't know a thing. TR explains the world we observe within many decimals, and you offer "rough approximations" in return. Why exactly do you imagine anybody should take you seriously?
Hans
"Rough" is a bit of an understatement.
The problems are yours, Bjarne. I have highlighted several things that are way off.Below is now the travel distance near the Sun modified to be , = diameter of the sun. Add to that little before and after, (fade in / out)
The following equation will shows you the relativistic stretch of space:
1/sqrt(1-2GM/(rc^2)
At the surface of the Syn u get 1/sqrt(1-2*6.67e-11*2e30/(7e8*3e8^2) = 1.000002117467 meter
This reveals how much at such position is a stretching inwards to the sun
The distortion ration is as you (hopefully) can understand 0.000002117467 meter
It is very likely that when matter pulls / stretches space, also light (photons embedded in that space) will also "move" - "the path of the photon will be stretched" - proportional to the stretch of space.
Therefore, regardless whether the path where the light travels will be 1mm, 1 meter or 1 light year, - then the ratio of the deflection will be the same, (assuming the data of equations are the same all the way.)
Therefore just past the sun + a little extra for fade in / out the total reflection will be based on the equation:
td*dr
• td=travel distance near the astronomic object
• dr=deflection ration (in this case of the surface of the sun)
Which mean : 1.4e9 x0.00000211 = 2954 meter (add to that "fade in fade out" a bit before and after the Sun )
And now the equation to figure out how that will affect the angle of the path, relative to an expected straight path near the sun, Ok ?
90*60*60/(r/dtd)
• 90*60*60 = degree*minutes*arcsecond
• r = radius from path of the photon to center of the Sun
• dtd = deflected travel distance
Which mean
90*60*60/(7e8/2954)= 1.37 arc seconds (add to that "fade in / fade out" - right before and after the travel distance - the "diameter of the sun" , - Only the gods now how much that is
So what is your problem ?, - and what is way off?
This is good for you, now you can show us the correct formula and be famous, first half is done, only the angle remains
No the ratio, is also meter, (and time seconds/ dilation if this is what you want)Bjarne
Some of your units are nonsense.
Then I am afraid you have not understood very muchYou still haven't explained what you mean by "travel distance near the astronomic object".
You are free to show how you think it have be doneYou still don't know how to convert radians to arcseconds
No the ratio, is also meter, (and time seconds/ dilation if this is what you want)
m'= 1m/sqrt(1-2GM/(rc^2)=unit-m
Then I am afraid you have not understood very much
You are free to show how you think it have be done
I am also afraid you cannot even try
No the ratio, is also meter, (and time seconds/ dilation if this is what you want)
m'= 1m/sqrt(1-2GM/(rc^2)=unit-m
Then I am afraid you have not understood very much
You are free to show how you think it have be done
I am also afraid you cannot even try
The prevailing religion is not my business.Your fears are well grounded. I would also be frightened if all I could base my alleged sensational cosmology on was nonsense formulas. The fact is, you don't even seem to understand how lensing occurs.
As I wrote this is your religion, not mine.Let me give you a hint: In lenses, be it ordinary glass lenses or gravitational lenses, the closer to the center of the lens, the slower light travels. (Assuming of course that we are talking about a collecting lens, which is the case for a gravitational lens.)
I made a allround rough calculation / approximation to what can be expected according to MTR (my religion).This is the reason you can't make out how the formula for "stretching" space should work: Because it doesn't. If light was just bent inwards on the way to pass a massive object, it would bend outwards again as it left. TR, on the other hand, explains it excellently, as time slows down as you go deeper into a gravity field.
The prevailing religion is not my business.
As I wrote this is your religion, not mine.
I made a allround rough calculation / approximation to what can be expected according to MTR (my religion).
When it comes to your religion, here is where the chain went off : - .....
Yes light moves relatively "slower" the closer to an astronomical object it travels. But only seen from an observer who is further towards the periphery of this object. But this is irrelevant.
The differences that are observed, - are in fact just a distortion of the local reality.
Regardless, any observer will measure c to be 299 792 458 m / s, because there is a proportional distortion of both time and distances (the ruler).
You can not use this for anything other than to state that the distortion of space is different for different observers.
Let's say the ratio is 1: 2 for Alice and Bob.
Alice will say that you moved 2 meters and it took 2 seconds, and thus 1 m / s.
Bob will see that you moved 1 meter and it took 1 second.
So Bob and Allice agree that you moved at 1m / s.
What's insane here is that Book and Alice can never agree on the distance you traveled.
Even though they disagree, they are both right. And therefore your conclusion does not hold.
The ruler is a variant, - if you get this wrong, - you get it all wrong.
And this was the must fundamental failure Einstein did, simply because he misunderstood the elastic nature of space.
The prevailing religion is not my business.
As I wrote this is your religion, not mine.
I made a allround rough calculation / approximation to what can be expected according to MTR (my religion).
When it comes to your religion, here is where the chain went off : - .....
Yes light moves relatively "slower" the closer to an astronomical object it travels. But only seen from an observer who is further towards the periphery of this object. But this is irrelevant.
The differences that are observed, - are in fact just a distortion of the local reality.
Regardless, any observer will measure c to be 299 792 458 m / s, because there is a proportional distortion of both time and distances (the ruler).
You can not use this for anything other than to state that the distortion of space is different for different observers.
Let's say the ratio is 1: 2 for Alice and Bob.
Alice will say that you moved 2 meters and it took 2 seconds, and thus 1 m / s.
Bob will see that you moved 1 meter and it took 1 second.
So Bob and Allice agree that you moved at 1m / s.
What's insane here is that Book and Alice can never agree on the distance you traveled.
Even though they disagree, they are both right. And therefore your conclusion does not hold.
None og the formulars are perfect, just rough approximations.
Well, if some of the theories regarding the last years of the universe are correct, perhaps. In a hundred trillion years or so.I'm sure he'll get it right eventually...........maybe
This is more than a little ironic, since basically every complaint about standard theories being wrong comes down to incredibly minor disagreements between observations and calculations, which are only observable because the calculations are so precise.
No the ratio, is also meter,
This is more than a little ironic, since basically every complaint about standard theories being wrong comes down to incredibly minor disagreements between observations and calculations, which are only observable because the calculations are so precise.
Still waiting for "relativity to begin falling apart"
[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/pgjnob3ulbnhx8l/tick-tock-clock.gif?raw=1[/qimg]
Oh my gosh! How very terrible!
2022 is almost over!
So does that mean that the Theory of Relativity has began to fall apart in 2016/2017?
Uh-huh. But the links in the OP now say "science27.com is parked free", so something is falling apart.It's almost 2023 and the theory of relativity seems to be in very good health.
You still don't know how to convert radians to arcseconds.
Let's be fair. Bjarne's formula was (90 * 60 * 60) / (7e8 / 2954), which is 1.36728.You still don't know how to convert radians to arcseconds.
It's worse than that.
(90 * 60 * 60) / (7e8 * 2954) = 13.7, not 1.37.
He does seem to have a lot of trouble using a keyboard.
Yep.Although I agree that whatever the units are, they are not arcseconds.
Let's be fair. Bjarne's formula was (90 * 60 * 60) / (7e8 / 2954), which is 1.36728.
Yep.
I just noticed this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity
Note not only that Bjarne is not mentioned, despite his considerable efforts to push his ideas various places on the internet, but also note how vastly more complex the math is for these theories compared to that of Bjarne's. And still they fail.
Hans
Crap, relativity must have fallen apart and then come back together again for this tread to be, well, relevant again.
'Those who don't remeber the thread are condemded to repost in it'
Oh my gosh!
I have been away from the Forum for the past few weeks.
Therefore, since 2023 is almost over, then can some nice Forum Member tell me if the Theory of Relativity has began to fall apart in 2016/2017?
Thanks much.