• 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

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.
Allais effect is about measurement
Measurement of an unknown force.
And it is about predicting the nature of that force, included when , where and why it can be measured.
 
You even don't know what you ask me to calculate. Try to understand MTR before blindly ask silly questions.


What’s the point of taking measurements if you don’t know what values your hypothesis predicts for those measurements?
 
You even don't know what you ask me to calculate. Try to understand MTR before blindly ask silly questions.
Allais effect is about measurement
Measurement of an unknown force.And it is about predicting the nature of that force, included when , where and why it can be measured.

Oh great!

Now this person is absurdly talking about measuring some kind of unknown force.
 
Curvature of space is fantasy, this is where the chain went of for Einstein. Live with it.

Again curvature has very specific characteristics not present in a flat space, as has already been explained to you multiple times.

The parallel transport of a vector around a closed loop in a curved space will not end up pointing in the same direction as when it stated on completing the loop. In a flat space it will point in the same direction. As I this difference is part of the GR contribution to the precession of the perihelion of Mercury.

The three angles of a triangle will add to something other than 180 degrees in a curved space. They will in a flat space.

The very specific properties of a curved space time is what Einstein and IIRC David Hilbert used to calculate the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Again, people have lived with it, and tried to disprove it (because that's how science gets done), since before you were born.
 
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 :

Which people have been asserting since it was first published. Simply asserting a theory is wrong, no matter how many do it, in no way proves that said theory is wrong. Do you assert your notions are wrong because other people assert they are wrong?
 
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.
Bjarne, you are saying you believe mainstream general relativity predicts less gravitational lensing than is observed, and you think that's a good reason to reject mainstream general relativity.

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.
Bjarne, you are saying you don't have any idea whether the gravitational lensing your theory would predict (if only you were capable of performing the calculation) would be any different from the lensing predicted by the mainstream theory.

Why, then, do you not reject your own theory for the same reason you reject mainstream GR?

But I never calculated that.. Its really not the mission with MTR.
You have spent years saying your theory should replace GR. To replace GR, calculations based upon your theory need to do at least as good a job as GR when it comes to predicting observable results.

When you say calculations are "really not the mission with MTR", you are saying MTR is not, and never will be, a viable contender to replace GR.

But off course it is easy to do.
So do it.

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 ..
Actually, we understand your theory quite well. Your theory is all about running away and hiding when asked for quantitative predictions.

Bjarne's theory: :aaa!
 
Last edited:
I'd be happy for starters if you calculated ANYTHING.

At one time Bjarne did try to 'calculate' the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Though it was more like just taking the established value and working back some numerology and not math because the units were messed up from the start. The values given didn't work out the same as the values resulting from the claimed calculation. Also IIRC he didn't understand that the relativistic contribution to the precession is only about 1/10th the total precession.

That's why the fixation on measurements and other peoples' calculations, because he is doing numerology not math.
 
Bjarne, you are saying you believe mainstream general relativity predicts less gravitational lensing than is observed, and you think that's a good reason to reject mainstream general relativity.
I am saying that this would not surprise me. If you want to know calculate what i ask you, I will do the same for MTR.

Bjarne, you are saying you don't have any idea whether the gravitational lensing your theory would predict (if only you were capable of performing the calculation) would be any different from the lensing predicted by the mainstream theory.
I am saying that this would not surprise me. I can calculate that, but is not sure I want to spend time on it so long the "level" here is too low.

Why, then, do you not reject your own theory for the same reason you reject mainstream GR?
Because the distortion of space that MTR predicts is not the cause of gravity.

You have spent years saying your theory should replace GR. To replace GR, calculations based upon your theory need to do at least as good a job as GR when it comes to predicting observable results.
It have never been the mission for MTR to dig deeper into the possible disagreement how much light bend... But it can be, if someone is serious to discuss this and not just blaaaa blaaaa blaaa

When you say calculations are "really not the mission with MTR", you are saying MTR is not, and never will be, a viable contender to replace GR.
I am saying that even though MTR could explain gravitational lensing, without to imply the dark matter add hoc, - even then no-one would serious listen. Still concrete heads would be concrete heads. So really why use time on that ?

Actually, we understand your theory quite well. Your theory is all about running away and hiding when asked for quantitative predictions.
Again all you do is showing low level, and that you not is serious.

Show how much light bends nearby a milky-way size galaxy, then I would start to take you serious, and show what can be derived according to MTR. Until then have a nice bla bla bla bla..
 
Last edited:
Also how much a silly ow eat if if have to deliver 8 liter milk every day ?

You aren't even writing sentences without glaring spelling and grammar errors. This isn't even amusing poking at a crank. I think you're not well. Seek help.
 
You even don't know what you ask me to calculate. Try to understand MTR before blindly ask silly questions.

Well, unless "MTR" is just your fantasy, there has to be some calculations.

Allais effect is about measurement
Measurement of an unknown force.

And calculating what it would take to make the observation. And showing that it can't be due to other factors.

And it is about predicting the nature of that force, included when , where and why it can be measured.

To prove something new, you need to show how the result would be due to existing physical laws, then calculate how your theory will influence it, then show how you can measure it.

Bjarne, you have used your "MTR" to explain anything from tornadoes to astronomic anomalies, but you have never shown how that fit the observations. So, excuse me for not taking you seriously .... at all.

Hans
 
Bjarne, you are saying you believe mainstream general relativity predicts less gravitational lensing than is observed, and you think that's a good reason to reject mainstream general relativity.
I am saying that this would not surprise me. If you want to know calculate what i ask you, I will do the same for MTR.
Bjarne, you already have more than a full century of those calculations, together with more than a century of observational tests of those calculations. As noted in the spoiler, those calculations were published in books for general audiences more than a century ago, along with results of the first observational tests (measurements). You may be too lazy to look at those calculations, but that's your fault, not ours.

What we don't have is any calculations at all for "MTR".

It's your turn, Bjarne.
In 1915, Karl Schwarzschild found the first exact solution to Einstein's field equations for general relativity. Schwarzschild's solution, discovered independently by Johannes Droste, made it possible to calculate the gravitational lensing predicted by Einstein's theory. Those calculations were tested by measurements conducted during the solar eclipse of 29 May 1919 [1,2].

In 1920, Sir Arthur Eddington published a book explaining general relativity to a general audience [1]. Notes 8 and 9 in the Appendix of that book contain the calculations Bjarne pretends to want. The first experimental tests of those calculations are described and discussed in Eddington's Chapter VII and in Appendix Three(B) of another book for a general audience written by Albert Einstein [2].

In a previous post, I cited a modern book by Steven Weinberg that devotes an entire chapter to gravitational lensing [3]. I also noted the 141 numbered equations in that chapter, along with its approximately 50 citations of primary research literature.

All three of those books are present within my personal library. Bjarne knows I could quote the relevant calculations from those books. Bjarne also knows he could find those calculations online or in a decent library.

[1] Sir Arthur Eddington. Space, Time, and Gravitation: an Outline of the General Relativity Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1920. Reprinted in 1959 by Harper Torchbooks.

[2] Albert Einstein. Relativity: the Special and the General Theory. Originally published in 1920. I have the Barnes and Noble edition published in 2008.

[3] Steven Weinberg. Cosmology. Oxford University Press, 2008.

Bjarne, you are saying you don't have any idea whether the gravitational lensing your theory would predict (if only you were capable of performing the calculation) would be any different from the lensing predicted by the mainstream theory.
I am saying that this would not surprise me. I can calculate that, but is not sure I want to spend time on it so long the "level" here is too low.
In other words, you are too lazy to make any effort at all towards showing your theory is better, or even remotely as good, as mainstream general relativity.

No one but you is ever going to care enough about your theory to perform those calculations. If you won't do it, it won't be done.

Why, then, do you not reject your own theory for the same reason you reject mainstream GR?
Because the distortion of space that MTR predicts is not the cause of gravity.
Bare assertions, backed by no evidence whatsoever, combined with arrogantly lazy refusal to perform even the simplest calculations that could support your assertions—Hey, that's a pretty good summary of your theory right there.

You have spent years saying your theory should replace GR. To replace GR, calculations based upon your theory need to do at least as good a job as GR when it comes to predicting observable results.
It have never been the mission for MTR to dig deeper into the possible disagreement how much light bend... But it can be, if someone is serious to discuss this and not just blaaaa blaaaa blaaa
Bjarne, the unserious person who is relying on "blaaaa blaaaa blaaa" is you.

When you say calculations are "really not the mission with MTR", you are saying MTR is not, and never will be, a viable contender to replace GR.
I am saying that even though MTR could explain gravitational lensing, without to imply the dark matter add hoc, - even then no-one would serious listen.
No serious person will ever be convinced by your bare assertions, devoid of quantitative predictions, accompanied by arrogantly lazy refusal to perform even the simplest calculations that could support your assertions.

Nor should they.

Actually, we understand your theory quite well. Your theory is all about running away and hiding when asked for quantitative predictions.
Again all you do is showing low level, and that you not is serious.
Bjarne, I and others have cited the calculations you pretend to want (see spoiler above), and no serious person doubts whether I and others could quote those calculations.

One of the reasons we have not yet quoted those calculations in this thread is that you have a documented history of starting with mainstream results and then faking your own calculations to come up with a similar result:

At one time Bjarne did try to 'calculate' the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. Though it was more like just taking the established value and working back some numerology and not math because the units were messed up from the start. The values given didn't work out the same as the values resulting from the claimed calculation. Also IIRC he didn't understand that the relativistic contribution to the precession is only about 1/10th the total precession.

That's why the fixation on measurements and other peoples' calculations, because he is doing numerology not math.


It's your turn, Bjarne. Calculations based on mainstream general relativity have been available to you for over a century, along with measurements testing those predictions.

It's your turn to get serious.
 
It's your turn to get serious.

I think it's time to give up. It's been years already, he's never going to get serious. I don't think he's even mentally well. It's probably best at this point to just leave him alone. I think my participation in the threat will end here, no more good can be done, even for lurkers.
 
That's no excuse.

You originally posted your nonsensical claims on 3rd February 2016. Covid didn't start affecting things until four years later in March 2020.

Since the beginnig, you have posted nothing but conjecture, speculation and your own opinions... all of which are unsubstantiated rubbish. What you have failed to do in seven years and four threads containing almost 10½ thousand posts is to provide anything remotely resembling evidence.

Meanwhile, Einstein's theories have been confirmed over and over again as new discoveries are made about the universe. Far from "falling apart", the Theory of Relativity has become even more strongly confirmed.

The simple fact is relativity is confirmed millions, probably billions of times daily with the use of GPS. GPS Satellites use relativity to adjust their timing. Being a few nanoseconds off can make a difference on the ground by as much as 3 football pitches.
 
What’s the point of taking measurements if you don’t know what values your hypothesis predicts for those measurements?

Why not calculate how fat you are, instead of weighing yourself? - Are both calculation and weighing acceptable scientific methods? - You only reveal that you have not understood either MTR or the scientific method.
 
Well, unless "MTR" is just your fantasy, there has to be some calculations.
If you really had understood MTR you would had ask for specifik calculations, other than all these already done.

And calculating what it would take to make the observation. And showing that it can't be due to other factors.
TR never did that, why do you think I should ?

To prove something new, you need to show how the result would be due to existing physical laws, then calculate how your theory will influence it, then show how you can measure it.
If you had read MTR and understood it you would not have wrote as you did.
For example give me 3771 million USD and I will specific prove RR to be true, by sending space probes in the same direct at Pioneer 10 and 11. Included modern Equipment.
For much less that this both RR, RRDFRT , and DFA can be proven again, and this is exactly what MTR-gravity Measurement did and does. Although you will only be able to say that it is an unknown "force", remember that this force is footed and can be predicted quite accurately and it is predicted that this "force" is a non-force that does not interact with other forces. Therefore, this "experiment" lives up to meet several of the requirements of the scientific method, and therefore the result will send shock waves out into the scientific communities. If there are still concrete heads that do not grasp anything, do not blame me.
 
The simple fact is relativity is confirmed millions, probably billions of times daily with the use of GPS. GPS Satellites use relativity to adjust their timing. Being a few nanoseconds off can make a difference on the ground by as much as 3 football pitches.

MTR is based on the Lorentz equation exactly like TR, and will therefore also (almost) give the same results according to the what we can expect from GPS.
 
Bjarne, you already have more than a full century of those calculations, together with more than a century of observational tests of those calculations. As noted in the spoiler, those calculations were published in books for general audiences more than a century ago, along with results of the first observational tests (measurements). You may be too lazy to look at those calculations, but that's your fault, not ours.

What we don't have is any calculations at all for "MTR"..

Gravitational lensing often shows 10 times as much gravity / mass as there really is.
I am not afraid to argue that MTR can explain gravitational reading without the need for add hoc, / dark matter.
Furthermore, Dr. Edward Dowdye Jr. challenges Einsten's claim about lensing when it comes to large distance from the sun.
Here, too, there can easily be something that MTR might be able to give a more precise answer to.

I have offered you and others that you specifically state what you expect according to TR based on different examples, - and I come with MTR's answers. I do not bother to discuss with myself. So it is up to you to decide to take this discussion or not. Deal ?
 
Why not calculate how fat you are, instead of weighing yourself? - Are both calculation and weighing acceptable scientific methods? - You only reveal that you have not understood either MTR or the scientific method.
If all I wanted to do was find out how much I weighed then either would be sufficient. But you don't just want to know what a measurement is, you want to show that measurement supports your theory, which means you need to show it fits your theory better than it fits GR.

The equivalent in your analogy is me wanting to know not just how fat I am, but whether or not I am too fat. So:

Hypothesis: I am too fat

In order to test that hypothesis I need to

1. Calculate what would qualify as too fat for someone of my height.
I could, for example, calculate what weight I would need to be to have a BMI of over 25.

2. Measure my weight

If (1) is less than (2) my hypothesis is proved
If (1) is more than (2) my hypothesis is disproved

Your hypothesis is: MTR is a better description of reality than GR

In order to test your hypothesis you need to

1. Identify a measurement that would be different for MTR than it is for GR
2. Calculate what that measurement should be for GR
3. Calculate what that measurement should be for MTR
4. Make the measurement

If (4) is the same as (3) your hypothesis is proved
If (4) is the same as (2) your hypothesis is disproved

This is not rocket science, Bjarne. If you don't understand why you need to first calculate and then measure it's you who doesn't understand the scientific method.
 
If all I wanted to do was find out how much I weighed then either would be sufficient. But you don't just want to know what a measurement is, you want to show that measurement supports your theory, which means you need to show it fits your theory better than it fits GR.
.

It is sufficient that measurement shows a significant unknown "force" which is abundant to shock the scientific community.
 
It is sufficient that measurement shows a significant unknown "force" which is abundant to shock the scientific community.

Such a measurement would only suggest that there's a problem with GR. It would not tell us anything at all about your theory, let alone that it's a better one than GR.
 
It is sufficient that measurement shows a significant unknown "force" which is abundant to shock the scientific community.

Oh Great! I am not too fat, it is just an unknown force which makes me look heavier than I truly am on the weight scale.
 
Such a measurement would only suggest that there's a problem with GR. It would not tell us anything at all about your theory, let alone that it's a better one than GR.

If you can predict the born of a completely new kind of cow saying Vuf Vuf Vuf instead of muuhhh, muuhhh muhhhh....... I am sure the scientific Society would get the morning coffee in crazy throat.

AND they will ask you how the heck it was possible to predict such a cow, -

HOW you did, and if it can be repeated.

Furthermore they would ask you if you also can tell them WHY this cow is 71 more stubborn - and 212 time so intelligent compared to normal cows.

And if they see again you also predicted that, they will certainly try to follow the path for that evidence, also even thought it should cost tax payer 5412583251263 billion USD.....
 
If you can predict the born of a completely new kind of cow saying Vuf Vuf Vuf instead of muuhhh, muuhhh muhhhh....... I am sure the scientific Society would get the morning coffee in crazy throat.

AND they will ask you how the heck it was possible to predict such a cow, -

HOW you did, and if it can be repeated.

Furthermore they would ask you if you also can tell them WHY this cow is 71 more stubborn - and 212 time so intelligent compared to normal cows.

And if they see again you also predicted that, they will certainly try to follow the path for that evidence, also even thought it should cost tax payer 5412583251263 billion USD.....

All you have predicted is that a certain measurement will be different than expected. You can't even predict the extent to which it will be different.

If the measurement turns out to be exactly as expected we can certainly completely dismiss your theory. If it turns out to be different your theory still has very little going for it, because it couldn't even predict the extent to which it would be different. Physicists will start looking for a theory that can, so they won't be knocking on your door.
 
MTR is based on the Lorentz equation exactly like TR, and will therefore also (almost) give the same results according to the what we can expect from GPS.

Furthermore, Dr. Edward Dowdye Jr. challenges Einsten's claim about lensing when it comes to large distance from the sun.
As has been noted, Dowdye rejects the Lorentz equation that, according to Bjarne, is responsible for Bjarne's theory giving "(almost)" "the same results" as mainstream general relativity.

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.



Gravitational lensing often shows 10 times as much gravity / mass as there really is.
I am not afraid to argue that MTR can explain gravitational reading without the need for add hoc, / dark matter.
Bjarne, none of the gravitational lensing calculations I have cited assume dark matter.
The fact that those calculations are indifferent to whether the matter is bright or dark has allowed astrophysicists to infer an apparent absence of certain kinds of dark matter in some observations of gravitational lensing. See for example the calculations in
Philippe Jetzer. Gravitational microlensing by the halo of the Andromeda galaxy. Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 286, nr 2, 1993, p 426-430.​
together with subsequent observations summarized thusly by Weinberg in §9.2 of Cosmology:
Weinberg said:
This suggests though it does not prove that the mass of the halo does not consist of dark objects with the masses of typical stars.
Note also that Bjarne's repeated challenge for us to provide calculations specific to the Andromeda galaxy had already been met by citations given to Bjarne even before his recent repetitions of that challenge.

I have offered you and others that you specifically state what you expect according to TR based on different examples,
Bjarne, you have been given calculations that state those expectations. Pretending you have not been given those calculations gives the appearance of deceit in addition to ignorance.

and I come with MTR's answers. I do not bother to discuss with myself. So it is up to you to decide to take this discussion or not. Deal ?
Yet you have been unable to show your calculations, and you have been unable to give any citation for calculations that show what your theory expects in the way of gravitational lensing.

When the other parties have already done as you ask, and are waiting for you to fulfill your half of the deal, re-issuing the challenge just emphasizes your dishonesty.
 
Last edited:
As has been noted, Dowdye rejects the Lorentz equation that, according to Bjarne, is responsible for Bjarne's theory giving "(almost)" "the same results" as mainstream general relativity.
It does not matter what Dr. Edward believe. The only think that matter is what he have observed and not observed while he was imployed by NASA.

Bjarne, none of the gravitational lensing calculations I have cited assume dark matter.
The fact that those calculations are indifferent to whether the matter is bright or dark has allowed astrophysicists to infer an apparent absence of certain kinds of dark matter in some observations of gravitational lensing. See for example the calculations in
Philippe Jetzer. Gravitational microlensing by the halo of the Andromeda galaxy. Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 286, nr 2, 1993, p 426-430.​
together with subsequent observations summarized thusly by Weinberg in §9.2 of Cosmology:

Show just one lensing effect from a galaxy nearby earth here at the forum. And also all the data such as distances mass and deflection angle. Then and only then you have done you half.
 
As has been noted, Dowdye rejects the Lorentz equation that, according to Bjarne, is responsible for Bjarne's theory giving "(almost)" "the same results" as mainstream general relativity.

It does not matter what Dr. Edward believe. The only think that matter is what he have observed and not observed while he was imployed by NASA.
So far as I can tell, Edward Dowdye never made any observations that would be relevant to gravitational lensing. Such observations would not been part of his job at NASA, according to his biography at Beyond Mainstream Science:
Dr. Dowdye was an electrical engineer (retired) at Goddard Space Flight Center, where he worked with satellite born laser systems, precision laser optics and the life-time performance of various non-linear crystals used for the generation of specific harmonics of a high energy Neodymium YAG infrared Laser.
That biography is duplicated word-for-word at other dubious sites, but his biography as stated at a less biased site makes no mention of him working at NASA. That these biographies are trying to describe the same person is evident from personal details in the obituary published when he died in 2020.

Unlike Bjarne, Dowdye knew how to derive exactly the same equation for gravitational lensing that Einstein and Eddington had published in 1920. Dowdye, however, believed that equation was inconsistent with observations:
There is convincing observational evidence that a direct interaction between light and gravitation in empty vacuum space simply does not occur. Historically, all evidence of light bending has been observed predominantly near the thin plasma rim of the sun
Unfortunately for Dr Dowdye's argument, the part I highlighted is simply not true. The twin quasar Q0957+561 had been discovered in 1979, and the Einstein Cross Q2237+030 in 1990. Dowdye, writing in 2007, should have known of those and other examples of gravitational lensing, but apparently found it convenient to ignore the rapidly accumulating body of observations that contradicted his desired conclusion.

Show just one lensing effect from a galaxy nearby earth here at the forum. And also all the data such as distances mass and deflection angle.
The galaxy closest to earth is the Milky Way galaxy, and the closest star of that galaxy is generally referred to as "the sun". The mass of the sun is approximately 1.5 kilometers (in natural units as calculated by Eddington (1920) in his Appendix Note 8, equivalent to about 2×1030kg in SI units). The deflection angles for eight recent observations are given in the following paper, which links to a CSV file with more complete data.
Emanuele Goldoni, Ledo Stefanini. A Century of Light-Bending Measurements: Bringing Solar Eclipses into the Classroom. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2002.01179

Then and only then you have done you half.
Done. Your turn.
 
MTR is based on the Lorentz equation exactly like TR, and will therefore also (almost) give the same results according to the what we can expect from GPS.
You need to prove that. Do you have a paper that is published in a respectable physics journal?
 
Show just one lensing effect from a galaxy nearby earth here at the forum. And also all the data such as distances mass and deflection angle. Then and only then you have done you half.

Bjarne, again, burden of proof. Nobody here needs to prove that Earth is round, that the Moon is not made of green cheese, or that the stork does not bring babies. If you want to review the evidence for mainstream science, consult your library or search the internet. Nobody here has to do their half. The claims discussed are YOUR claims, and you have to do YOUR whole.

What you need is to find a lensing effect and show how your cosmological model explains it better than TR. Don't just claim it does, show your math.

Hans
 
Bjarne, again, burden of proof. Nobody here needs to prove that Earth is round, that the Moon is not made of green cheese, or that the stork does not bring babies. If you want to review the evidence for mainstream science, consult your library or search the internet. Nobody here has to do their half. The claims discussed are YOUR claims, and you have to do YOUR whole.

What you need is to find a lensing effect and show how your cosmological model explains it better than TR. Don't just claim it does, show your math.

Hans
Without the math, relativity wouldn't be the accepted theory and Einstein
would never have been known for anything other than being a patent clerk.
 
Bjarne, again, burden of proof. Nobody here needs to prove that Earth is round, that the Moon is not made of green cheese, or that the stork does not bring babies. If you want to review the evidence for mainstream science, consult your library or search the internet. Nobody here has to do their half. The claims discussed are YOUR claims, and you have to do YOUR whole.

What you need is to find a lensing effect and show how your cosmological model explains it better than TR. Don't just claim it does, show your math.

Hans
If no cow named Peter Albert exist, - I cannot prove it, and I will not spend time on it either. Still the earth would be round and still the moon is not made of green cheese. - If you think all aspect of the TR religion is true, - that's your problem.
 
Last edited:
Without the math, relativity wouldn't be the accepted theory and Einstein
would never have been known for anything other than being a patent clerk.
TR is a theory mainly trying to explain math known before TR existed, and the very strange consequences that math had in the late eighteenth century . This is just a simple matter of facts.
 
So far as I can tell, Edward Dowdye never made any observations that would be relevant to gravitational lensing. Such observations would not been part of his job at NASA, according to his biography at Beyond Mainstream Science:
Dr. Dowdye was an electrical engineer (retired) at Goddard Space Flight Center, where he worked with satellite born laser systems, precision laser optics and the life-time performance of various non-linear crystals used for the generation of specific harmonics of a high energy Neodymium YAG infrared Laser.
That biography is duplicated word-for-word at other dubious sites, but his biography as stated at a less biased site makes no mention of him working at NASA. That these biographies are trying to describe the same person is evident from personal details in the obituary published when he died in 2020.

Unlike Bjarne, Dowdye knew how to derive exactly the same equation for gravitational lensing that Einstein and Eddington had published in 1920. Dowdye, however, believed that equation was inconsistent with observations:

There is convincing observational evidence that a direct interaction between light and gravitation in empty vacuum space simply does not occur. Historically, all evidence of light bending has been observed predominantly near the thin plasma rim of the sun
Unfortunately for Dr Dowdye's argument, the part I highlighted is simply not true. The twin quasar Q0957+561 had been discovered in 1979, and the Einstein Cross Q2237+030 in 1990. Dowdye, writing in 2007, should have known of those and other examples of gravitational lensing, but apparently found it convenient to ignore the rapidly accumulating body of observations that contradicted his desired conclusion.
When working by NASA we have reason to believe that Edward was properly educated.
It seems he know what he is talking about, and is experienced.

Already right after the 1919 Eddington experiment many scientist agreed, that what Eddington measurement not was accurate due fatamorgana caused by the hot atmosphere of the sun..
Do we know enough about refraction of hydrogen, helium, gases and cosmic dust?

Is gravitational lensing true or not? Is gravitational lensing observed at every black hole?
https://www.researchgate.net/post/I...tational_lensing_observed_at_every_black_hole

Unsolved problems in gravitational lensing.
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997upa..conf...93B/abstract

Dr. Ed Dowdye: Solar Gravitation and Solar Plasma Wave Propagation Interaction | EU2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnvOybT2WwU&t=202s

Dr Edward Dowdye - Classic Physics and Optics Challenges Gravitational Lensing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSJoFr1C8cM
 
Last edited:
Done. Your turn.

You are not done. - Don't hide you behind others work. Show what you believe and what you understand.

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.

Now the periphery of a milkyway size galaxy...
1/sqrt(1-2*6.67e-11*1e9*2e30/(5e20*3e8^2) = 2,96e-9
On a 1000 LY path, - by passing the edge of such galaxy, - we will have 1000 LY, - and the ratio 2,96e-9 meter

Total Deflection 9.5e18x2.96e-9 =28120000000m

In both cases add "fade in and fade out"

As you see this is a different story. Which suggest Edward to be correct about the missing deflection near the Sun..
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom