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

Bjarne said:
Correction .. We have previously discussed whether it is possible to measure the Dark Flow Acceleration at the South Pole. There will be only a slight change in the direction of the centripetal force, - as a result of the Earth's rotation / Release of Dark Flow Related Tension (RDFRT) (properly not possible to measure). One can not measure any strength variation in the centripetal force (CF), as claimed before. The latter can only be measured near the North Pole. The reason to that confusion is as mentioned before that CF and RDFRT can be difficult to distinguish from each other. it can create some misconceptions.
Click to expand...

Correction some misconceptions evidently created the confused notion of a Dark Flow, any Related Tension and any Release thereof.

You do understand that any change in the direction of a centripetal force would mean that it is not, well, centripetal anymore? Near the poles what is the center of rotation of the Earth?
 
Bjarne said:
Correction .. We have previously discussed whether it is possible to measure the Dark Flow Acceleration at the South Pole. There will be only a slight change in the direction of the centripetal force, - as a result of the Earth's rotation / Release of Dark Flow Related Tension (RDFRT) (properly not possible to measure). One can not measure any strength variation in the centripetal force (CF), as claimed before. The latter can only be measured near the North Pole. The reason to that confusion is as mentioned before that CF and RDFRT can be difficult to distinguish from each other. it can create some misconceptions.
Click to expand...

Burning question Bjarne... has it fallen apart yet? You told us it would fall apart in 2016/17. That was over 5 years ago... what happened?
 
smartcooky said:
Burning question Bjarne... has it fallen apart yet? You told us it would fall apart in 2016/17. That was over 5 years ago... what happened?
Click to expand...

Thing is, we detected gravitational waves from a neutron star merger in 2017, accompanied by the simultaneous EM radiation. And then we imaged the event horizon of a black hole. We also detected the predicted level of gravitational redshift from star S-02 around Sgr A*.
Things are going from bad to worse for Bjarne. Relativity keeps being confirmed. His gibberish keeps being refuted. Hence why it does not exist in the scientific literature. It is the same reason flat earth is not taken seriously. It is nothing to do with science.
 
Last edited:
Well to be fair, “begin to fall apart” isn’t “completely fall apart”.

It could be argued that ToR began to fall apart in 2016/2017, but that beginning was so infinitesimally small it’s virtually impossible to detect. It could also be argued that claims of ToR being more robustly confirmed recently are merely confirmation bias conclusions combined with a form of Emperors New Clothes-ism. Although these arguments may be remotely plausible I don't think they're very credible.

I would be very disappointed if it was ever proven that the bulk of scientists were proven wrong in their support of ToR (I expect science to do better than that). I don’t expect any scientist concludes ToR is absolutely correct and some fine (or even coarse) tuning will occur with time. I'm hoping the JWST will provide info that helps to more prove or disprove ToR.

Time dilation is the ToR thing I have most difficulty in accepting (yes I know about GPS satellites) as the consequences create scenarios that seem to me to be as ridiculous and magical as god claims (what did Art C Clarke say again?). Not accepting isn’t say it’s wrong, and I make no excuses for my skepticism. I’d rather be true to myself than be a sheeple.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
Totally. :thumbsup:


You're not convinced of relativity or your not convinced it is wrong?
Click to expand...
I’m not convinced ToR is either right or wrong. Every time I’ve tried to understand it from the ground up I keep hitting acceptance of claims walls, and the analogies sound ridiculous. When I hear “If an ant walks in a straight line on the surface of a sphere” I reply “That’s as impossible in reality as 2D ants and 2D spheres, so don’t bring those up either”. “What’s north of north” is one of the stupidest questions I’ve ever heard, and I usually reply “The North Star” or “North doesn’t actually exist”. Don't get me started on the light clock ;).

My position may simply be incredulity due to ignorance. But I’m quite harmless as I don’t teach or preach against ToR, I simply can’t and don’t accept it at this time, and it’s not a subject that affects my life greatly either way.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
I’m not convinced ToR is either right or wrong. Every time I’ve tried to understand it from the ground up I keep hitting acceptance of claims walls, and the analogies sound ridiculous. When I hear “If an ant walks in a straight line on the surface of a sphere” I reply “That’s as impossible in reality as 2D ants and 2D spheres, so don’t bring those up either”. “What’s north of north” is one of the stupidest questions I’ve ever heard, and I usually reply “The North Star” or “North doesn’t actually exist”. Don't get me started on the light clock ;).

My position may simply be incredulity due to ignorance. But I’m quite harmless as I don’t teach or preach against ToR, I simply can’t and don’t accept it at this time, and it’s not a subject that affects my life greatly either way.
Click to expand...

I don't like accepting anything base on authorities so I understand your position quite well.. Still, I'm generally convinced

For me to personally confirm it I would have to seriously refresh my math skills.
I took Calculus in High School, but it looks like Sanskrit to me today. I have no intention at this point in my life re-learn it.

But far too many people I admire have done the math and they are convinced. So until a better theory comes along, I'll accept it.

Here is a list of tests that have been done that confirm relativity and why they do.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
I don't like accepting anything base on authorities so I understand your position quite well.. Still, I'm generally convinced

For me to personally confirm it I would have to seriously refresh my math skills.
I took Calculus in High School, but it looks like Sanskrit to me today. I have no intention at this point in my life re-learn it.

But far too many people I admire have done the math and they are convinced. So until a better theory comes along, I'll accept it.

Here is a list of tests that have been done that confirm relativity and why they do.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link. I'm sure I've read it before, but will do so again.

I could never rely totally on themathdidit :D.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
Time dilation is the ToR thing I have most difficulty in accepting (yes I know about GPS satellites) as the consequences create scenarios that seem to me to be as ridiculous and magical as god claims
Click to expand...
Oh, they're far more counterintuitive than god claims. God claims actually make intuitive sense - "the gods are angry" is not just the obvious explanation of thunder and lightning, it's also a perfectly adequate one. It just doesn't happen to be the correct one.

We shouldn't be surprised that intuition which evolved to maximise our chances of working out where the ripe fruit is and retrieving it without being eaten is not much help, and even sometimes a hindrance, when it comes to divining and understanding the underlying nature of the universe.
 
smartcooky said:
For mine, the Hafele-Keating experiment on 1971 was pretty conclusive, with a result that is hard to explain without SR.

Click to expand...


For me it has always been the relativistic (and quantum) effects associated with chemistry. Showing that while fundamentally geometrically incompatible (one continuous and one discrete) they both contribute to what makes today's chemistry so amazingly effective.


Relativistic quantum chemistryWP
 
smartcooky said:
For mine, the Hafele-Keating experiment on 1971 was pretty conclusive, with a result that is hard to explain without SR.

Click to expand...
My initial response before looking at the details of the experiment (which I will do) . . .

Clocks running slower or faster doesn’t mean time is running slower or faster.

Clocks run most accurately in a stable environment. Traveling around the world in an airplane isn’t a very stable environment.

A trip flying around the world against it’s spin is effectively quicker and shorter than with it.

From my first peek at what I’ve found about the experiment . . .

The flights were on commercially scheduled planes with many landings and takeoffs and took three days. I’m not sure if the clocks were even always in the same plane or not. Did a single commercial plane have a flight path that took it completely around the world in 1971? It seems the same clocks were flown around one way for three days then the other way for three days. In other words it seems there wasn’t two planes with two sets of clocks flying around the world in opposite directions at the same time as the clip implies.

This seems like a very sloppy experiment to be called scientific. So far I’m not impressed. Will keep at it . . .

ETA - Have you (or anyone else) had an in-depth look at the experiment?
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
My initial response before looking at the details of the experiment (which I will do) . . .

Clocks running slower or faster doesn’t mean time is running slower or faster.
Click to expand...

Ummm.. you do understand what a Caesium Beam Atomic clock is, right?

Clue. It has no moving parts, it doesn't have springs or need a key to wind it up. "Stable environment" is not part of its requirements It is the standard by which all clocks in the world have a traceable calibration standard back to.

ynot said:
A trip flying around the world against it’s spin is effectively quicker and shorter than with it.
Click to expand...

This is the exact opposite of what really happens. Seriously, you have no idea.

Anything flying west flies slower in the reference frame because it flies against the spin of the the earth. This is why rockets are launched and usually pitch over into an easterly direction, because of gain from the spin of the earth.
 
Last edited:
ynot said:
My initial response before looking at the details of the experiment (which I will do) . . .

Clocks running slower or faster doesn’t mean time is running slower or faster.

Clocks run most accurately in a stable environment. Traveling around the world in an airplane isn’t a very stable environment.

A trip flying around the world against it’s spin is effectively quicker and shorter than with it.

From my first peek at what I’ve found about the experiment . . .

The flights were on commercially scheduled planes with many landings and takeoffs and took three days. I’m not sure if the clocks were even always in the same plane or not. Did a single commercial plane have a flight path that took it completely around the world in 1971? It seems the same clocks were flown around one way for three days then the other way for three days. In other words it seems there wasn’t two planes with two sets of clocks flying around the world in opposite directions at the same time as the clip implies.
This seems like a very sloppy experiment to be called scientific. So far I’m not impressed. Will keep at it . . .

ETA - Have you (or anyone else) had an in-depth look at the experiment?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure those variables would make much of a difference. If time isn't relativistic, the clocks would show exactly the same passage of time. There has to be an explanation. Only two makes sense to me.

1.We cannot depend on the accuracy of the clocks.
2. Relativity is correct.
 
ynot said:
My initial response before looking at the details of the experiment (which I will do) . . .

Clocks running slower or faster doesn’t mean time is running slower or faster.

Clocks run most accurately in a stable environment. Traveling around the world in an airplane isn’t a very stable environment.

A trip flying around the world against it’s spin is effectively quicker and shorter than with it.

From my first peek at what I’ve found about the experiment . . .

The flights were on commercially scheduled planes with many landings and takeoffs and took three days. I’m not sure if the clocks were even always in the same plane or not. Did a single commercial plane have a flight path that took it completely around the world in 1971? It seems the same clocks were flown around one way for three days then the other way for three days. In other words it seems there wasn’t two planes with two sets of clocks flying around the world in opposite directions at the same time as the clip implies.

This seems like a very sloppy experiment to be called scientific. So far I’m not impressed. Will keep at it . . .

ETA - Have you (or anyone else) had an in-depth look at the experiment?
Click to expand...

As these were atomic clocks, particularly cesium-beam atomic clocks, with such transitions in a cesium being now the very definition of a second. It is as literal and scientific of a meaning of time going slower or faster as one could get.


"Atomic" second

Since 1967, the second has been defined as exactly "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" (at a temperature of 0 K and at mean sea level). This length of a second was selected to correspond exactly to the length of the ephemeris second previously defined. Atomic clocks use such a frequency to measure seconds by counting cycles per second at that frequency. Radiation of this kind is one of the most stable and reproducible phenomena of nature.
Click to expand...

Though plans are in the works for revising the definition to account for advances in such clocks.




The Wikipedia article on the experiment

Hafele–Keating experimentWP


Details, calculations and other links from Hyperhysics


Hafele and Keating Experiment
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
As these were atomic clocks, particularly cesium-beam atomic clocks, with such transitions in a cesium being now the very definition of a second. It is as literal and scientific of a meaning of time going slower or faster as one could get.


"Atomic" second
Click to expand...

Exactly!:thumbsup:

While I guess it is still somehow possible that the clocks are inaccurate, it seems unlikely.
 
smartcooky said:
Ummm.. you do understand what a Caesium Beam Atomic clock is, right?

Clue. It has no moving parts, it doesn't have springs or need a key to wind it up. "Stable environment" is not part of its requirements It is the standard by which all clocks in the world have a traceable calibration standard back to.



This is the exact opposite of what really happens. Seriously, you have no idea.

Anything flying west flies slower in the reference frame because it flies against the spin of the the earth. This is why rockets are launched and usually pitch over into an easterly direction, because of gain from the spin of the earth.
Click to expand...
You’re right! I made intuitive assumptions without really thinking about them and researching them (I was rushing with a bias). My Bad. Thanks for the lesson. I’m obviously not capable of competently evaluating what I’m doubting so I will just have to live with knowing my position springs from my ignorance and incredulity and accept it. Not a position I’m happy with but at my age not a position I can or will change as I have other things I would rather do with my limited time left.

ETA - I hope my folly might serve as a lesson to others . . .
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom