• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

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

None og the formulars are perfect, just rough approximations.

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
 
None og the formulars are perfect, just rough approximations.
"Rough" is a bit of an understatement.

Bjarne didn't answer any of our specific questions, so I guess Bjarne doesn't want to repair his theory of gravitational lensing.

We can, however, draw a number of conclusions. We can draw the following conclusions even if Bjarne never explains exactly what he thinks he means by phrases such as "total deflection" or "travel length near the astronomical object (sun galaxy etc)" or "travel-path" or "distance near the astronomic object".
  1. Bjarne's formula for the "total deflection" of light passing by the edge of the sun during a solar eclipse is
    r × ((1/sqrt(1-2GM/(rc^2))) - 1)
    ≈ r × ((1/(1-GM/(rc^2))) - 1)
    ≈ r × ((1 + GM/(rc^2)) - 1)
    = r × GM/(rc^2)
    = GM/(c^2)​
    where r is the radius of the sun.
  2. When simplified as above, that approximation does not mention the radius of the sun or how close a ray of light comes to the sun.
  3. It's really hard to think of any plausible definition for the "total deflection" of a ray of light that would be so well approximated by a formula that is entirely independent of its proximity to the sun and also independent of the sun's radius.
  4. Bjarne's thrice-corrected formula for some allegedly related distance yields an area, not a distance.

The spoilers below contain technical details and commentary.

Notes regarding item 1.

Bjarne has told us his formula(s) several times, making occasional "corrections". Here are direct quotations:

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 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.

With my highlighting in blue:

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 above in my item 4, this "corrected" formula yields an area, not a distance.

Just in case we missed his errors, Bjarne repeated them and added another error:
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.
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.

But when Bjarne wrote the stuff I highlighted in blue, he didn't really mean it:
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
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.

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
If Bjarne's obvious errors were merely typos, why did he continue to repeat the same obvious errors?

Bjarne is still repeating his original formula for "the relativistic stretch of space":
The following equation will shows you the relativistic stretch of space: 1/sqrt(1-2GM/(rc^2)
For small values of ε, sqrt(1-2ε) ≈ (1-ε), and 1/(1-ε) ≈ 1+ε, so
1/sqrt(1-2GM/(rc^2)) ≈ 1/(1-GM/(rc^2)) ≈ 1+GM/(rc^2)​
Bjarne consistently substracts 1 from that formula, as he does here:
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.
After that subtraction, Bjarne's "ratio that shows how much space is stretched a given place" is very well approximated by GM/(rc^2).

Bjarne then multiplies that formula by r (the radius of the sun), or by a somewhat larger number (highlighted below in blue) he seems to have pulled out of the air:
td*dr
  • td=travel distance near the astronomic object
  • dr=deflection ration (in this case of the surface of the sun)
Which mean : 1.185e9 x0.00000211 = 2500 meter


Notes regarding item 2.

Bjarne's formula for the "total deflection" of light is essentially independent of how closely the light grazes the sun, and is also essentially independent of the radius of the sun. Bjarne's formula depends only upon the mass of the sun, so it would predict essentially the same "total deflection" for a much smaller white dwarf of the same mass as the sun or a much larger red giant of the same mass as the sun.

Those predictions of Bjarne's formula are quite different from predictions made by the mainstream theory of general relativity. The predictions made by the mainstream theory of general relativity are consistent with observations of starlight bending near the sun during a total eclipse. Bjarne's predictions are not consistent with those observations.


Notes regarding item 3.

My first two guesses as to what Bjarne meant by "total deflection" made that distance depend upon the distance from lensing object to observer, but Bjarne insists his notion of "total deflection" does not depend upon the distance from lensing object to observer.

Okay. My third guess as to what Bjarne means by "total deflection" is illustrated by the ASCII art below. Although this third guess also turns out to depend upon the distance from lensing object, that fact is less obvious than with my first two guesses. I would prefer not to guess, but Bjarne prefers not to explain, so we can't discuss Bjarne's theory of gravitational lensing without guessing what he might mean by certain phrases.

The ray of light coming from a faraway star follows an essentially straight line until it gets near the sun and is bent by the sun's gravity (as illustrated by the + signs below, which you should imagine as a smooth curve). As the bent ray leaves the sun, it once again becomes an essentially straight line headed toward earth.
Code:
 \
  \
   \  <-- ray of light coming from a faraway star
    \
     \
      \
       \
        \
         \
          \
           \
            \
             \
              \
               \
                \
                 \
                  \
                   \
                    \
                     \
                      \
                       \
                        \
                         \
                          \
                           \
                           +\
                            +\
                            + \               /
                             + \             /
                             +  \           /
                             +   \         /
                              +   \       /
                              +    \     /
                              +     \   /
                               +     \ /
               edge of sun -->)A------X
                               +     / \
                              +     /   \
                              +    /     \
                              +   /       \
                             +   /         \
                             +  /           \
                             + /             \
                            + /               \
                            +/                 Z
                           +/
                           /
                          /
                         /
                        /
                       /
                      /
                     /
                    /
                   /
                  /
                 /
                /
               /
              /
             /
            /
           /
          /
         /
        /
       /
      /
     /
    /
   /  <-- bent ray of light going to earth
  /
 Y
My third guess at what Bjarne means by "total deflection" is the distance from point A, where the bent ray of light grazes the sun, and point X, which the straight-line portions of the light ray's path would cross if you extended those straight lines.

It may not be obvious that the distance from A to X depends upon the assumption that the ray of light would have been tangent to the surface of the sun if it had not been bent by the sun's gravity. As will be seen in my spoiler for the bonus question, that assumption has the effect of determining a distance from sun to observer as well as the distance from A to X.


Notes regarding item 4.

Bjarne's thrice-corrected formula for a certain alleged distance he has yet to explain in words I am able to understand is
D2 × (DR)​
where D is said to be some "distance near the astronomic object" and DR is said to be a "deflection ratio, - must be ratio".

If D is a distance and DR a unitless ratio, then Bjarne's formula yields an area, not a distance.

Bjarne thinks his formula yields a distance. It doesn't. It yields an area. 'Nuff said.


Bonus question (for those who enjoy math word problems):
My "Notes regarding item 3" explain my third guess as to what Bjarne might mean by the "total deflection" distance. Assume Einstein's theory of general relativity is correct, and use Einstein's theory to calculate a good approximation to that distance.

Hint: Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts the deflection angle θ = ∠YXZ is very well approximated by 4GM/(rc2) (in radians).​
I think this is a nice word problem, partly because it took me so long to work it out, and I'm still not entirely certain my answer to it is correct. If someone finds an error in my calculation below, please let me know.

Repeating part of the ASCII art in my "Notes regarding item 3":
Code:
               edge of sun -->)A------X
                               +     / \
                              +     /   \
                              +    /     \
                              +   /       \
                             +   /         \
                             +  /           \
                             + /             \
                            + /               \
                            +/                 Z
                           +/
                           /
                          /
                         /
                        /
                       /
                      /
                     /
                    /
                   /
                  /
                 /
                /
               /
              /
             /
            /
           /
          /
         /
        /
       /
      /
     /
    /
   /  <-- bent ray of light going to earth
  /
 Y
That ASCII art is not drawn to scale. In reality, as confirmed by observations, the deflection angle is small (roughly 1.75 arcseconds), and the distance from A to X is also small compared to the distance from A to Y.

Let r be the radius of the sun, r' the distance from A to Y, and a the distance from A to X. Imagine the above picture rotated counter-clockwise by 90 degrees. Using a Cartesian coordinate system with the center of the sun at the origin, the point A at <0,r>, and the point X at <0,r+a>, all points on the line XY satisfy
<x, r + a − x tan(θ/2)​
because the slope of the line is −θ/2, where θ is the deflection angle. For a point E on that line that has y-coordinate r,
r = r + a − x tan(θ/2)​
so
a = x tan(θ/2)​
The reason I'm interested in point E is that a horizontal line through E (after you've rotated the picture counter-clockwise by 90 degrees!) is tangent to the surface of the sun. It therefore corresponds to the path a ray of light from some distant star would take if that ray were not deflected at all.

During a total eclipse of the sun, that ray of light is deflected through the deflection angle θ, with about half of the deflection before the ray reaches the neighborhood of the sun and the other half of the deflection as the deflected ray travels to earth.

If the earth is located at point E, as is approximately true for a star whose light would graze the sun (as seen from earth) if not for the deflection, then x is very well approximated by the distance from earth to sun, which is 150e9 meters.

According to the mainstream theory of general relativity, the deflection angle is θ ≈ 4GM/(rc2), where r is the distance from the undeflected ray of light to the center of the sun, which is to say r is the sun's radius as defined above. Plugging numbers into the above equation for a and using a small-angle approximation for tangent, I get
a = x tan(θ/2)
= x tan(2GM/(rc2))
≈ x × 2GM/(rc2)
≈ 150e9 × 2 × (6.6743e-11) × 1.9891e30 / (6.957e8 (3e8)2) meters
≈ 636091 meters​
I'd guess there's only one or two significant digits in that result, so let's call it 600 kilometers.

If my third guess at what Bjarne thinks he means when he says "total deflection" distance is right, then a is that total deflection distance.

As shown in my "Notes regarding item 1", Bjarne's first calculation of his "total deflection" distance yielded 1477 meters. Later, when Bjarne "corrected" by using his mysterious and as-yet-unexplained distance of 1.185e9 meters instead of the sun's radius of 7e8 meters as in his first calculation, he got 2500 meters. If my third guess as to his meaning is right, then Bjarne's calculations of his "total deflection" distance appear to be off by a factor of 250 to 450. But who knows whether he was even trying to calculate the distance I just calculated?

It is more interesting to compare Bjarne's formula for that calculation to the formula I derived above. As shown in my "Notes regarding item 1", Bjarne's original formula for his "total deflection" distance (before he switched to a formula that gives an area instead of a distance) was
r × GM/(rc^2) = GM/(c^2)​
Compare that to my formula:
a = x tan(θ/2) ≈ x × 2GM/(rc2)​
Bjarne's formula is the same as mine except for these two things:
  • Where the x in my formula is the distance from earth to sun, Bjarne used r, the radius of the sun, causing the two mentions of r in Bjarne's formula to divide out.
  • Bjarne lost a factor of 2 along the way, possibly because he used the Newtonian formula for the deflection angle, which is exactly half of the relativistic formula for that angle.
It looks to me as though Bjarne may have gotten closer to a correct formula than I ever would have imagined.

Finally, take a look at this:
Try this 90*60*60/(r/dd) ---- dd = deflection distance near the object, what do you think you get then ?
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 my
a/x ≈ tan(θ/2) ≈ θ/2​
which is half of the relativistic deflection angle (in radians), and equal to the full Newtonian value for the deflection angle. Bjarne's multiplication by 90*60*60 would then represent a clueless attempt to convert radians into arcseconds.
:p
 
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

This is good for you, now you can show us the correct formula and be famous, first half is done, only the angle remains
 
"Rough" is a bit of an understatement.

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 : 1.4e9x0.00000211 = 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?
 
Last edited:
Bjarne continues to copy/paste his previous errors, adding still more errors as he does so.

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?
The problems are yours, Bjarne. I have highlighted several things that are way off.
  • Some of your units are nonsense.
  • You still haven't explained what you mean by "travel distance near the astronomic object".
  • Your refusal to explain what you mean by that phrase appears to be deliberate, as its vagueness allows you to pull numbers out of the air.
  • You are still pulling numbers out of the air, in what appears to be a dishonest attempt to make your formulas come out with a result you think is in the general ballpark of observations made during solar eclipses.
  • You still don't know how to convert radians to arcseconds.
 
This is good for you, now you can show us the correct formula and be famous, first half is done, only the angle remains

There isn't a correct formula, because your whole theory is nonsense.

Hans
 
Bjarne

Some of your units are nonsense.
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

You still haven't explained what you mean by "travel distance near the astronomic object".
Then I am afraid you have not understood very much

You still don't know how to convert radians to arcseconds
You are free to show how you think it have be done
I am also afraid you cannot even try
 
Last edited:
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

Wait, so the only length you can apply your "ratio" to is "1m". How limited.

ETA: Also after claiming your ratio has units of meter you just ignore that when multiplying it to your travel distance, presumably also in meters. The result you simply label as meters, would actually be units of distance squared, if indeed your "ratio" has units of distance as you just explicitly claimed. An outcome you perhaps realized at some point since you asserted a distance squared times your ratio previously.

Then I am afraid you have not understood very much

Your fears are not relevant.

You are free to show how you think it have be done
I am also afraid you cannot even try

It is incumbent on no one to do your work for you. You are free to continue practicing your numerology, for your own entertainment, as long as you wish.

Again, your fears are not relevant.
 
Last edited:
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

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.

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.)

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.

Hans
 
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.
The prevailing religion is not my business.

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.)
As I wrote this is your religion, not mine.

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.
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.
 
Last edited:
The prevailing religion is not my business.


As I wrote this is your religion, not mine.

Well, there's half your problem, considering this to be about religions.

I made a allround rough calculation / approximation to what can be expected according to MTR (my religion).

Fantastic, so we can expect your "MTR" "religion" to be 'approximately' "allround" dead wrong. Even to the point where your "calculation / approximation" that you actually use is different than what you asserted was needed. That's the other part of your problem, the inability to get quantitative mathematical (not just fudged numbers) results that are even comparable to both TR and observation.

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.

Wait, what?!?! You just asserted that "light moves relatively "slower"" except to some observer you claim to be irrelevant. Then you assert that elapsed time varies between two observers which was exactly what MRC_Hans was asserting. If you want to show someone's "conclusion does not hold" then don't make assertions that agree with it.


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.

Again, ones ruler is defined as at rest (co-moving) with the observer. It can never vary for that observer. However, other observers can measure your ruler differently just as they can measure other distance different than you. Again that's all a ruler is, just some particular distance but defined as being at rest (co-moving) with you so it never varies for you. Again, it is explicitly the fact that it does not vary for you that makes it a ruler for you.

Again, how exactly do you define a ruler that is "variant" even for you?
 
The prevailing religion is not my business.


As I wrote this is your religion, not mine.

Why exactly should I care?


I made a allround rough calculation / approximation to what can be expected according to MTR (my religion).

This is your problem: You make a guess and try to make your calculations fit. And you fail every time. Now, most people might ponder that just perhaps their guess was wrong.

When it comes to your religion, here is where the chain went off : - .....

No, Bjarne, I have to tell you it's where YOUR chain went off: You simply don't understand TR.

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.

No. The light that passed through the gravity field can actually be observed to arrive later than light that didn't. It is not just a local reality, because there is only one reality. And that reality is that time runs lower in the gravity field. This can be observed by all observers.

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).

Yes, this is what they observe in their own reference frame. But they can also (given the right conditions) observe what happens in other reference frames.

You can not use this for anything other than to state that the distortion of space is different for different observers.

Yes, you can. You can also deduce exactly what the other observers will perceive.

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.

Wrong. They do not disagree. That is, if they understand TR and don't try to apply YOUR silly ideas. If they understand TR, they can accurately deduce and predict what the other observer will perceive.

YOUR problem, Bjarne, is that you simply haven't understood TR and what it implies. And instead of putting in the hard work to learn and understand, you substitute your own fantasies. And fail.

I'm sorry, but there is no nicer way to say it.

Hans
 
None og the formulars are perfect, just rough approximations.

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.
 
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.

Thanks much.

Also, when one considers the vast amount of technology that is currently available to 'Bjarne' which he could use to validate his various ideas in order to show that his various ideas are actually very correct and that Einstein ideas about Relativity are very incorrect.

However, 'Bjarne' has consistently failed to work out any of his various ideas even though he has had a few years to do so.

Conversely, while Einstein was working for a few years in Swiss Patent Office and without using any technology, he still managed to develop some of the most remarkable ideas in all of science.
 
Still waiting for "relativity to begin falling apart"

tick-tock-clock.gif
 
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.

Yeah. I have several times tried to ask Bjarne how he knew that such anomalies existed. At best, he has linked to scientific pages detailing the deviation. I have then pointed out that if his "MTR" thesis was right, those calculations would be WAY off and thus he would have no idea if the deviation existed or what it was.

But this seems to go over his head.

Hans
 
Still waiting for "relativity to begin falling apart"

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/pgjnob3ulbnhx8l/tick-tock-clock.gif?raw=1[/qimg]

Oh, some day it no doubt will, to some degree. Science is working hard on that. But somehow, I am certain whatever update to TR is eventually found will not confirm any of the numerous alternative ideas that various people zealously defend on public web forums. :rolleyes:

Hans
 
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?
 
Are we there yet?

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?

So what's your hurry? We still have 26 days left in 2022. Never mind 2016/2017. That was just a rough approximation. :D
 
IIRC there was some experiment that was scheduled to be carried out on the ISS that would somehow prove the OP right, though he was unable to predict exactly what the result would be, which kept getting pushed back. I can't be bothered to go back to find out which one it was and check to see if it was ever done, as the OP seems to have run away.

ETA: I just checked his profile, Bjarne last visited the forum in May.
 
Last edited:
I'm just trying to process the Theory of Relativity falling apart. Will bits of it stop working? Which ones?

I'm most worried about GPS systems. :scared:

What else?
 
Well, at the time when Bjarne posted this the first time, a number of experiments were sceduled that were supposed to confirm TR. Bjarne predicted they would fail to do so. And he then assumed that this would vindicate his ideas (which was, of course, far from given). To be fair, some of those experiments were postponed indefinitely (after all, affirming that water is wet will tend to have secondary priority), but many others were indeed carried through and confirmed TR to a few extra decimals.

So, that .....

Hans :rolleyes:
 
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.

Although I agree that whatever the units are, they are not arcseconds.
 
Last edited:
Sigh. Dropped a zero.

However, it's clear that 90 * 60 * 60 is the number of arcseconds in pi/2. Which I don't see anywhere in his "equations", but it suggests that he thinks it comes from somewhere.
 
Crap, relativity must have fallen apart and then come back together again for this tread to be, well, relevant again.
 
Crap, relativity must have fallen apart and then come back together again for this tread to be, well, relevant again.

“Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.” And Douglas Adams likely did not realize 40 years ago how correct he may prove to be.
 
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.
 
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.

I too have been on vacation and not participating in the forum the past two weeks. Despite the beatings the dead horse hasn't moved and has only become flatter and even more rank.
 
Back
Top Bottom