• 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

False.

As everyone can check for themselves, I quoted Bjarne correctly. With my highlighting:

My God Walter. Finally you had a point.. I must begin to be old.

Returning to Bjarne's most recent post:

When an alleged theory of relativity (such as Bjarne's) consistently fails to predict the observed results, most often by failing to provide any quantitative predictions whatsoever, that means the alleged theory is (at best) useless.
BS MTR is already proven

http://pubs.sciepub.com/FAAC/4/1/5/index.html

In February 2016, Bjarne predicted all of the following:
None of Bjarne's bulleted predictions have passed scientific muster.
Many of those bulleted items have more in common with tendentious opinion than testable hypothesis, but it is fair to say the last five years of scientific progress have produced no evidence for any of those opinions.
Bjarne's meta-prediction was "The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017".
I can not garantere what time the last idiot will begin to understand MTR.
Further more I cannot prevent delays for different scientific test..
And Finally also not predict Covid-19 would delay the final prove of MTR, - at least 4 years. etc... etc.. etc..

We are now five years past the date of Bjarne's meta-prediction. It is fair to note that Bjarne's meta-prediction has failed.
Few years more or less is nothin.... More than 100 years after TR we are still testing, still not sure.

During those five years, the general theory of relativity has become even more well-established, as attested by a variety of communications scattered throughout the four lengthy subthreads that have been devoted to this topic so far.

BS
These years we see other cracks....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtdLfdnpzs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiKQ9xI8Ke8

https://www.theepochtimes.com/former-nasa-physicist-disputes-einsteins-relativity-theory_739183.html

I could find many more such videos........

No knowledgeable person says the general theory of relativity is flawless. In fact, the theory identifies its own flaws in the form of mathematical singularities, under extreme conditions where the theory can't possibly be right because it doesn't predict any physics whatsoever. Under all conditions we have been able to test, however, the theory of relativity has held together just fine.
The curvature of space is an invention that sooner or later will be replaced by elastic space.
 
Last edited:


I'll bet you just looked at the titles of these videos without actually watching any of them.. I know this is a safe bet because none of them even come remotely close to supporting any of the total spurious bollocks you have been spouting here. They are nothing but pure, unbridled, unsubstantiated speculation.


The Epoch Times!? Really?

:rolleyes:

Nuff said
 
The curvature of space is an invention that sooner or later will be replaced by elastic space.

While your "elastic space" isn't even such an "invention" as you can't actually and quantitatively define any of its properties.

Can't an elastic curve?

Did you not speak of your own "elastic space" twisting and spiraling?
 
Now tell us all why you fell gravity under your feet's, and what the curvature of space have to do with this.

You don't feel gravity under your feet you feel the floor or ground under your feet. Remove them (floor or ground) and gravity is still there but you won't feel it.

What the curvature of space has to do with it is that it defines your inertial path. The floor or ground is blocking and changing that path, hence you feel an inertial force between the ground and your feet. Like going around a corner fast and being pushed against the side of the vehicle or being pushed against the wall in one of those tilt a whirl rides.
 
The Epoch Times!? Really?

:rolleyes:

Nuff said
If you don't like The Epoch Times, you can view some of Dr. Edward H. Dowdye Jr's videos at the Thunderbolts site.
:)

To save anyone the trouble, here's a short summary of what you need to know about Dowdye's Extinction Shift Principle, with colors and fonts approximating those of his slides:
Dowdye said:
  • [size=+1]All transformations are strictly carried out under
    Galilean Transformations of Velocities[/size]
    c' = c ± v; c' ≠ c
    {v = unbounded}​
  • [size=+1]All calculations are performed strictly in
    Euclidean Space Geometry[/size]
    No AD HOC assumptions required
    No requirements of a medium (no ether)
    No curvilinear coordinates required
    No distortions of the standard coordinate system of space and time required​
  • ....snip....
  • [size=+1]All Laws of Nature are totally invariant under
    Galilean Transformations
    in
    Euclidean Space
    from Reference Frame - to - Reference Frame
    [/size]
In other words, Dr Dowdye vehemently disagrees with Bjarne's acceptance of the Lorentz transformation.

It seems Bjarne has cited Dr Dowdye for no other reason than the fact that Dowdye's ideas are as nutty as Bjarne's.

Citing crackpottery that is completely at odds with your own crackpottery, only because it might show that someone else's ideas are as nutty as yours, is a behavior often seen among those who are more concerned about being against the mainstream than with giving a coherent presentation of their own against-the-mainstream ideas.
 
You don't feel gravity under your feet you feel the floor or ground under your feet. Remove them (floor or ground) and gravity is still there but you won't feel it.

What the curvature of space has to do with it is that it defines your inertial path. The floor or ground is blocking and changing that path, hence you feel an inertial force between the ground and your feet. Like going around a corner fast and being pushed against the side of the vehicle or being pushed against the wall in one of those tilt a whirl rides.

Curvature of space is fantasy, this is where the chain went of for Einstein. Live with it.
 
It was never just you. Heck, people have been trying to refute relativity since before you were born. That's how real science works.

Wrong, the resistance against TR is that some aspects of this theory is anti-logical, anti-intuitive and anti-imaginary, - self contradictory, - anticoherent, with the rest of the universe, - and that a growing list proves that theory to be wrong. For example watch the videos below :

Dark Matter findings suggest Einstein’s Theory of Relativity “may be wrong” - BBC News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtdLfdnpzs

Problem with the accelerating universe, - Dark Energy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiKQ9xI8Ke8

Former NASA Physicist Disputes Einstein’s Relativity Theory
https://www.theepochtimes.com/former-nasa-physicist-disputes-einsteins-relativity-theory_739183.html

Dark Flow
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgdNBQCdhdA

NON-GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION IN THE ORBIT OF 1I/2017 U1 (‘Oumuamua)
https://esahubble.org/static/archives/releases/science_papers/heic1813/heic1813a.pdf

Flyby Anomalies
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
Quote: The absence of any convincing explanation has led to a number of explanations, ranging from the influence or dark matter and tidal effects to extensions of general relativity and the existence of new physics
https://www.sciencealert.com/juno-i...-t-the-first-time-it-s-happened-flyby-anomaly

How we know that Einstein's General Relativity can't be quite right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov98y_DCvRY

Quantum Mechanics Vs Quantum Gravity | Earth Lab
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX48uFXM2qI&t=10s

The Black Hole Information Loss Problem is Unsolved. And Unsolvable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqLM3JYUByM

Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe
also this video shows that something (of course TR) is terrible wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2CWaLU6eMI

Spooky alignment of quasars across billions of light-years
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
https://phys.org/news/2014-11-spooky-alignment-quasars-billions-light-years.html

Mysterious dance of dwarfs may force a cosmic rethink
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
https://phys.org/news/2014-07-mysterious-dwarfs-cosmic-rethink.html

Pioneer Anomaly, still?
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
Quote: to conclude that the deceleration wasn't explained.
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/79814-pioneer-anomaly-still/

Does Planet X Actually Exist?
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lizT3uonZHg

Dark matter: The matter we can't see
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HneiEA1B8ks
 
Last edited:
Wrong, the resistance against TR is that some aspects of this theory is anti-logical, anti-intuitive and anti-imaginary, - self contradictory, - anticoherent, with the rest of the universe, - and that a growing list proves that theory to be wrong. For example watch the videos below :

Dark Matter findings suggest Einstein’s Theory of Relativity “may be wrong” - BBC News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtdLfdnpzs

Problem with the accelerating universe, - Dark Energy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiKQ9xI8Ke8

Former NASA Physicist Disputes Einstein’s Relativity Theory
https://www.theepochtimes.com/former-nasa-physicist-disputes-einsteins-relativity-theory_739183.html

Dark Flow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgdNBQCdhdA

NON-GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION IN THE ORBIT OF 1I/2017 U1 (‘Oumuamua)
https://esahubble.org/static/archives/releases/science_papers/heic1813/heic1813a.pdf

Flyby Anomalies
The absence of any convincing explanation has led to a number of explanations, ranging from the influence or dark matter and tidal effects to extensions of general relativity and the existence of new physics
https://www.sciencealert.com/juno-i...-t-the-first-time-it-s-happened-flyby-anomaly

How we know that Einstein's General Relativity can't be quite right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov98y_DCvRY

Quantum Mechanics Vs Quantum Gravity | Earth Lab
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX48uFXM2qI&t=10s

The Black Hole Information Loss Problem is Unsolved. And Unsolvable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqLM3JYUByM

Bjarne, notice that you are here undermining your own story about how the concrete-minded science establishment will not consider changes to TR.

The fact is that science is constantly poking at it, with theories, fantasies, and serious experiments. It is well known that there are boundaries, past which TR is likely to not hold true, just like Newtonian gravity only holds within certain conditions. Science is trying hard to figure out where the boundaries are for TR and what happens beyond them.

But you are not doing any real science. Your "theory" is a patchwork of notions that you have changed and modified several times as the worst errors became apparent even to you, or you has some piece of data that you had to shoehorn your ideas to fit.

However, there are still some fatal flaws in it. For example it requires a universal inertial frame. Much as you try to gloss over the problems with it, that alone invalidates your idea, because it has been effectively proven that such a frame does not exist.

Also, as I have told you repeatedly over the years, your thermodynamics don't work out. That is the acid test of any theory: If it violates thermodynamics, you're back to square one.

Hans
 
Citing crackpottery that is completely at odds with your own crackpottery, only because it might show that someone else's ideas are as nutty as yours, is a behavior often seen among those who are more concerned about being against the mainstream than with giving a coherent presentation of their own against-the-mainstream ideas.


Isn't that just Crank Magnetism under the subheading "Vindication of all Kooks Doctrine" ?
 
Also, as I have told you repeatedly over the years, your thermodynamics don't work out. That is the acid test of any theory: If it violates thermodynamics, you're back to square one.
Hans
Lie, try to be concrete instead of lying
 
Last edited:

I completed this list while you was posting.. So let me repeat the list ( and you know that list is really much longer, anyway here are some of the most important links) .

Dark Matter findings suggest Einstein’s Theory of Relativity “may be wrong” - BBC News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtdLfdnpzs

Problem with the accelerating universe, - Dark Energy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiKQ9xI8Ke8

Former NASA Physicist Disputes Einstein’s Relativity Theory
https://www.theepochtimes.com/former...ry_739183.html

Dark Flow
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgdNBQCdhdA

NON-GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION IN THE ORBIT OF 1I/2017 U1 (‘Oumuamua)
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
https://esahubble.org/static/archive.../heic1813a.pdf

Flyby Anomalies
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
Quote: The absence of any convincing explanation has led to a number of explanations, ranging from the influence or dark matter and tidal effects to extensions of general relativity and the existence of new physics
https://www.sciencealert.com/juno-is...-flyby-anomaly

How we know that Einstein's General Relativity can't be quite right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov98y_DCvRY

Quantum Mechanics Vs Quantum Gravity | Earth Lab
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX48uFXM2qI&t=10s

The Black Hole Information Loss Problem is Unsolved. And Unsolvable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqLM3JYUByM

Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe
also this video shows that something (of course TR) is terrible wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2CWaLU6eMI

Spooky alignment of quasars across billions of light-years
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
https://phys.org/news/2014-11-spooky...ght-years.html

Mysterious dance of dwarfs may force a cosmic rethink
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
https://phys.org/news/2014-07-myster...c-rethink.html

Pioneer Anomaly, still?
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
Quote: to conclude that the deceleration wasn't explained.
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/...anomaly-still/

Does Planet X Actually Exist?
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lizT3uonZHg

Dark matter: The matter we can't see
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HneiEA1B8ks
 
Bjarne, notice that you are here undermining your own story about how the concrete-minded science establishment will not consider changes to TR.

The fact is that science is constantly poking at it, with theories, fantasies, and serious experiments. It is well known that there are boundaries, past which TR is likely to not hold true, just like Newtonian gravity only holds within certain conditions. Science is trying hard to figure out where the boundaries are for TR and what happens beyond them.


He doesn’t seem to understand that Einstein being wrong wouldn’t mean that Bjarne is right.
 
I completed this list while you was posting.. So let me repeat the list ( and you know that list is really much longer, anyway here are some of the most important links) .

Dark Matter findings suggest Einstein’s Theory of Relativity “may be wrong” - BBC News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtdLfdnpzs

Problem with the accelerating universe, - Dark Energy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiKQ9xI8Ke8

Former NASA Physicist Disputes Einstein’s Relativity Theory
https://www.theepochtimes.com/former...ry_739183.html

Dark Flow
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgdNBQCdhdA

NON-GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION IN THE ORBIT OF 1I/2017 U1 (‘Oumuamua)
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
https://esahubble.org/static/archive.../heic1813a.pdf

Flyby Anomalies
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
Quote: The absence of any convincing explanation has led to a number of explanations, ranging from the influence or dark matter and tidal effects to extensions of general relativity and the existence of new physics
https://www.sciencealert.com/juno-is...-flyby-anomaly

How we know that Einstein's General Relativity can't be quite right
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ov98y_DCvRY

Quantum Mechanics Vs Quantum Gravity | Earth Lab
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX48uFXM2qI&t=10s

The Black Hole Information Loss Problem is Unsolved. And Unsolvable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqLM3JYUByM

Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe
also this video shows that something (of course TR) is terrible wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2CWaLU6eMI

Spooky alignment of quasars across billions of light-years
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
https://phys.org/news/2014-11-spooky...ght-years.html

Mysterious dance of dwarfs may force a cosmic rethink
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
https://phys.org/news/2014-07-myster...c-rethink.html

Pioneer Anomaly, still?
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
Quote: to conclude that the deceleration wasn't explained.
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/...anomaly-still/

Does Planet X Actually Exist?
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lizT3uonZHg

Dark matter: The matter we can't see
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HneiEA1B8ks


It’s it enough to say that TR cannot account for something, you need to demonstrate that your hypothesis can.
 
It’s it enough to say that TR cannot account for something, you need to demonstrate that your hypothesis can.

You should really try to watch at least this video

Dark Flow
(Kinematics that TR again cannot account for)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgdNBQCdhdA

After doing so, realize that if Dark Flow is true, then also dark Flow Acceleration is true.
Next is to realize that periodical astronomic object and systems will move (more or less) towards or oppesite the Dark Flow Acceleration Direction.
This will have a lot of consequences.
Now you are on the track, - to see for you self how the universe will change..
So far we are ONLY speaking about simple consequences of Dark Flow.

Ask you self why the dark flow speed ONLY is 600km/s
Even a tiny little dark flow acceleration will withing some million years easy could course that speed to reach c. - if RR was not true.

Now remember that it require more and more energy to maintain a certain acceleration
Ask you self WHERE does that energy go ?
Relativistic mass ?
Ask you self which process is responsible ?

In the end of the day it is not so difficult to begin to understand MTR , - is it ?
 
Last edited:
After doing so, realize that if Dark Flow is true, then also dark Flow Acceleration is true.
Next is to realize that periodical astronomic object and systems will move (more or less) towards or oppesite the Dark Flow Acceleration Direction.
This will have a lot of consequences.


Such as what, specifically? Can you quantify these “consequences” so they can be used to test your hypothesis? Can you demonstrate that whatever quantifiable predictions you make follow from your hypothesis?
 
Where are your numbers, Bjarne? Why can’t you produce any numbers?

(Rhetorical question. We all know why you can’t.)
 
If you don't like The Epoch Times, you can view some of Dr. Edward H. Dowdye Jr's videos at the Thunderbolts site.
:).

I don't believe Dr. Edward H. Dowdye is stupid. After all he worked by NASA. I guess they dont employ the most stupid people.
My point is that gravitational lensing is not exactly as Einstein predicted, - It must be much stronger, simply because we see stronger effect as expected. And as you know Dark Matter is not the reason why. Which equation is used only to calculate the magnitude og galaxy lensing. - It could be funny to try to compare what can be derived from MTR and TR, - ignoring any influence of so called dark matter..
 
My point is that gravitational lensing is not exactly as Einstein predicted, - It must be much stronger, simply because we see stronger effect as expected.


Does your hypothesis predict this? Please show the maths.
 
I don't believe Dr. Edward H. Dowdye is stupid. After all he worked by NASA. I guess they dont employ the most stupid people.
My point is that gravitational lensing is not exactly as Einstein predicted, - It must be much stronger, simply because we see stronger effect as expected. And as you know Dark Matter is not the reason why. Which equation is used only to calculate the magnitude og galaxy lensing. - It could be funny to try to compare what can be derived from MTR and TR, - ignoring any influence of so called dark matter..

You are an individual who is quite ignorant even though you often call other people "stupid".
 
It could be funny to try to compare what can be derived from MTR and TR

That would require you actually do a calculation.

And that is never, ever, ever going to happen. It's almost a fundamental law of nature at this point.
 
With my highlighting:
My point is that gravitational lensing is not exactly as Einstein predicted, - It must be much stronger, simply because we see stronger effect as expected. And as you know Dark Matter is not the reason why. Which equation is used only to calculate the magnitude og galaxy lensing. - It could be funny to try to compare what can be derived from MTR and TR, - ignoring any influence of so called dark matter..
Yes, it would be great fun to compare your theory's quantitative predictions of gravitational lensing against mainstream predictions based on general relativity.

Let's do it:
Bjarne's theory: :aaa!
General Relativity: See for example
Steven Weinberg. Cosmology. Oxford University Press, 2008.​
Chapter 9 of that book ("Gravitational Lenses") contains 141 numbered equations and something on the order of 50 citations.​

Does your hypothesis predict this? Please show the maths.
Pease do show your math, Bjarne. We can't compare the quantitative predictions of your theory against general relativity's predictions until we see a quantitative prediction based on your theory.

[size=-2]ETA: Ninja'd by Ziggurat while I was counting equations and citations in Weinberg's Chapter 9.[/size]​
 
Last edited:
With my highlighting:

Yes, it would be great fun to compare your theory's quantitative predictions of gravitational lensing against mainstream predictions based on general relativity.

Let's do it:
Bjarne's theory: :aaa!
General Relativity: See for example
Steven Weinberg. Cosmology. Oxford University Press, 2008.​
Chapter 9 of that book ("Gravitational Lenses") contains 141 numbered equations and something on the order of 50 citations.​


Pease do show your math, Bjarne. We can't compare the quantitative predictions of your theory against general relativity's predictions until we see a quantitative prediction based on your theory.

[size=-2]ETA: Ninja'd by Ziggurat while I was counting equations and citations in Weinberg's Chapter 9.[/size]​

How much do you expect light to bend if we assume right behind Andromeda there is a light source, and light from that would pass close the periphery of Andromeda on its way to earth. Mention mass and distance at the same time.
 
Does your hypothesis predict this? Please show the maths.

I think I have mentioned 1000 times that the ruler is a relativistic variant. It would surprise me if light not would be affected pretty similar to what is predicted by TR. However it would also not surprise me that MTR would should stronger effect. But I never calculated that.. Its really not the mission with MTR. But off course it is easy to do.

MTR is rather to:
  • Prove that matter and space is elastic connected.
  • Prove that RR is true
  • Prove that RR and DFA is counteracting each other.
  • Prove that as soon as DFA (under and astronomi object) is neutralize a new phenomena is true ( Relates of Dark Flow Related Relativist Tension) (RDFRT)..
  • Prove that RDFRT is quite unique, because it does not interact with other force's, - and therefore really "new physic", that very difficult can be sweet under the blanket.
 
That would require you actually do a calculation.

And that is never, ever, ever going to happen. It's almost a fundamental law of nature at this point.

I have learned to use a CG5 gravimeter, and I have had a test measurement trip already. I call this progress. Never say never.
 
Last edited:
I think I have mentioned 1000 times that the ruler is a relativistic variant. It would surprise me if light not would be affected pretty similar to what is predicted by TR. However it would also not surprise me that MTR would should stronger effect. But I never calculated that.. Its really not the mission with MTR. But off course it is easy to do.

MTR is rather to:
  • Prove that matter and space is elastic connected.
  • Prove that RR is true
  • Prove that RR and DFA is counteracting each other.
  • Prove that as soon as DFA (under and astronomi object) is neutralize a new phenomena is true ( Relates of Dark Flow Related Relativist Tension) (RDFRT)..
  • Prove that RDFRT is quite unique, because it does not interact with other force's, - and therefore really "new physic", that very difficult can be sweet under the blanket.

You can't prove anything if you don't do the calculations. What do you think "prove" even means in science?

Do the calculations, Bjarne. That's the only thing that has any meaning at the end of the day.
 
I have learned to use a CG5 gravimeter, and I have had a test measurement trip already. I call this progress. Never say never.

Oh, you might well take some measurements, I won't discount that possibility. But they won't mean anything, because you won't have anything to compare them to. You will not do the calculations. That's a Rubicon you will never cross.
 
You can't prove anything if you don't do the calculations. What do you think "prove" even means in science?

Do the calculations, Bjarne. That's the only thing that has any meaning at the end of the day.

There is nothing to calculate in this context, only to measure.....
You just revealed you do not understand MTR at all ..
 
There is nothing to calculate in this context, only to measure.....


How will you be able to tell whether or not your measurements are consistent with your hypothesis if you don’t calculate the measurements predicted by the hypothesis?
 
There is nothing to calculate in this context, only to measure.....
You just revealed you do not understand MTR at all ..

If you don't think there's anything to calculate, you don't understand science at all.
 
If you don't think there's anything to calculate, you don't understand science at all.


It’s as if Bjarne has heard that scientists confirm hypotheses by taking measurements, so thinks that if he just measures something his hypothesis will be confirmed. Cargo cult science.
 
How will you be able to tell whether or not your measurements are consistent with your hypothesis if you don’t calculate the measurements predicted by the hypothesis?

You even don't know what you ask me to calculate. Try to understand MTR before blindly ask silly questions.
 
It’s as if Bjarne has heard that scientists confirm hypotheses by taking measurements, so thinks that if he just measures something his hypothesis will be confirmed. Cargo cult science.

You even don't know what you ask me to calculate. Try to understand MTR before blindly ask silly questions.
 
Back
Top Bottom