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

Status
Not open for further replies.
BTW, if the clocks on GPS satellites do get munged, people really do notice:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-35491962

Several companies were hit by hours of system warnings after 15 GPS satellites broadcast the wrong time, according to time-monitoring company Chronos.

The company observed problems last week, after noticing some GPS time signals were 13 microseconds out.

Such a discrepancy is considered severe and several Chronos telecoms clients faced "12 hours" of system errors.

[...]

According to the US Air Force (USAF), which manages the GPS satellite network, problems began when a satellite named SVN 23 was decommissioned.

A USAF spokeswoman confirmed that the error had been pushed to the satellites by "ground system software".
Click to expand...
 
Anyone know where the Navstar (GPS) vehicle health report can be found? I remember someone used to post it regularly to sci.geo.satellite-nav years ago. I tried to do a search and instead kept coming up with pages about Ford vehicles and Navistar.... :boggled:
 
BowlOfRed said:
Anyone know where the Navstar (GPS) vehicle health report can be found? I remember someone used to post it regularly to sci.geo.satellite-nav years ago. I tried to do a search and instead kept coming up with pages about Ford vehicles and Navistar.... :boggled:
Click to expand...

Well, there's the USCG status page:
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?Do=constellationStatus

Is that what you're looking for, or a more detailed report on the individual satellite statuses? (not sure where to look for that . . .)
 
Pixel42 said:
You do realise that's an earlier article from the same paper? The very same journalists who were cautioning a month ago that this may turn out to be a false alarm are now saying it isn't.
Click to expand...

Gravitational waves
According to the theory I represent, - space is elastic.
Matter absorbs, is entangle in the elastic property of space.
This mean space is stretching towards matter.

Based on thought experiments, everything is stretching proportional with time.
This mean that towards a gravitational field not only time is stretching, - but the ruler (and everything else) is too.

Now, - if the Sun suddenly would disappear, - stretching (tension of) space towards the sun will be released with the speed of light.

This mean that the because the Earth also in entangled in space, it will be brought away from where the Sun before was,- together with the tide wave of released space-tension. This is what dark energy really is. – Just the opposite of what gravity is.

So when the Sun would just vups disappear , - at the same time, due to loss of background gravity the Earth and everything on it, as well as time, - will shrink, and time off course will tick faster.

There is no reason to believe that there was nothing before Big bang.
Rather it must have been a collapsing universe that at last exploded everywhere, due to critical mass density everywhere.

Now let’s say the universe has a radius of 1000 billion light years, and that the strong force as well as gravity is lost right now.

The result is that is that tension of space will continue to be released in 1000 billion years.
Notice parallel with loss of space-tension, the strong force and gravity is “reborn” so soon matter again cools enough.
So parallel with the loss of tension, a new wave of reborn tension is also spreading all over the universe.
It is the race between these 2 that have led to the discovery of the so called accelerating universe.

Nothing of this contradict with any hard evidence, - but is only a better and more complete understanding of the nature of what deformation of space really is.

In the exact same way as release of space-tension, also changing of background gravity, caused by collision etc. is also traveling to all corners of the universe.

So when LIGO is hit by a gravitational wave, it means that it is hit by an effect where the ruler and (everything) as well as time is changing proportional.

Notice this actually happens all the time (because of so called dark energy) , - but from all directions.

I mean of you could jump from one space time reality to another, and compare the difference, you could see that your body is now only the half size your clock thick half so fast (or opposite) compared to before .

But the fact is you cannot compare to before, so everything will look the same as before, because everything have change proportional.

I am not sure that LIGO can detect such wave of reality change. Lets see.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
Gravitational waves
According to the theory I represent, - space is elastic.
Matter absorbs, is entangle in the elastic property of space.
This mean space is stretching towards matter.
Click to expand...

Pompous, ehh? You don't "represent a theory", you have a private idea. With no evidence to show for it.

Based on thought experiments, everything is stretching proportional with time.
This mean that towards a gravitational field not only time is stretching, - but the ruler (and everything else) is too.
Click to expand...

That is, charitably, the lay-man's description of relativity, ues.

Now, - if the Sun suddenly would disappear, - stretching (tension of) space towards the sun will be released with the speed of light.
Click to expand...

Apart from the extremely silly notion that the sun could suddenly disappear, then obviously, its gravity field would vanish, and the straightening out of spacetime would propagate as a gravity wave.

This mean that the because the Earth also in entangled in space, it will be brought away from where the Sun before was,- together with the tide wave of released space-tension.
Click to expand...

As Earth would no longer be held in orbit, it would proceed in a straight line through space, following a tangent to its orbit.

This is what dark energy really is. – Just the opposite of what gravity is.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

So when the Sun would just vups disappear , - at the same time, due to loss of background gravity the Earth and everything on it, as well as time, - will shrink, and time off course will tick faster.
Click to expand...

That effect would be very marginal.

There is no reason to believe that there was nothing before Big bang.
Rather it must have been a collapsing universe that at last exploded everywhere, due to critical mass density everywhere.
Click to expand...

Nobody claims there was nothing prior to BB. We just don't know what it was.

Now let’s say the universe has a radius of 1000 billion light years, and that

*snipped, one of Bjarne's typical nonsense examples*

It is the race between these 2 that have led to the discovery of the so called accelerating universe.
Click to expand...

Gibberish

Nothing of this contradict with any hard evidence, - but is only a better and more complete understanding of the nature of what deformation of space really is.
Click to expand...

Bjarne, it is gibberish. It isn't even wrong, because it means nothing.

You have to face this: Whatever you think of cosmology and relativity and science in general, it is way over your head. You don't have the education or knowledge to even half understand it, and you can neither add to it nor detract from it.

You are like a bicycle mechanic from 1880 trying to comment on the construction of a modern car. It ain't pretty.:rolleyes:

That is not a rash dismissal, this discussion goes back years, and you have never understood any of the explanations you were given.

Hans
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
Gravitational waves
According to the theory I represent, - space is elastic.
Matter absorbs, is entangle in the elastic property of space.
This mean space is stretching towards matter.

Based on thought experiments, everything is stretching proportional with time.
This mean that towards a gravitational field not only time is stretching, - but the ruler (and everything else) is too.

Now, - if the Sun suddenly would disappear, - stretching (tension of) space towards the sun will be released with the speed of light.

This mean that the because the Earth also in entangled in space, it will be brought away from where the Sun before was,- together with the tide wave of released space-tension. This is what dark energy really is. – Just the opposite of what gravity is.

So when the Sun would just vups disappear , - at the same time, due to loss of background gravity the Earth and everything on it, as well as time, - will shrink, and time off course will tick faster.

There is no reason to believe that there was nothing before Big bang.
Rather it must have been a collapsing universe that at last exploded everywhere, due to critical mass density everywhere.

Now let’s say the universe has a radius of 1000 billion light years, and that the strong force as well as gravity is lost right now.

The result is that is that tension of space will continue to be released in 1000 billion years.
Notice parallel with loss of space-tension, the strong force and gravity is “reborn” so soon matter again cools enough.
So parallel with the loss of tension, a new wave of reborn tension is also spreading all over the universe.
It is the race between these 2 that have led to the discovery of the so called accelerating universe.

Nothing of this contradict with any hard evidence, - but is only a better and more complete understanding of the nature of what deformation of space really is.

In the exact same way as release of space-tension, also changing of background gravity, caused by collision etc. is also traveling to all corners of the universe.

So when LIGO is hit by a gravitational wave, it means that it is hit by an effect where the ruler and (everything) as well as time is changing proportional.

Notice this actually happens all the time (because of so called dark energy) , - but from all directions.

I mean of you could jump from one space time reality to another, and compare the difference, you could see that your body is now only the half size your clock thick half so fast (or opposite) compared to before .

But the fact is you cannot compare to before, so everything will look the same as before, because everything have change proportional.

I am not sure that LIGO can detect such wave of reality change. Lets see.
Click to expand...

I cannot let this latest pile of steaming fecal matter go by without comment: NO!!!!!just *********** NO!!! You have nothing but the spelling of some of the words correct.
 
Pixel42 said:
You do realise that's an earlier article from the same paper? The very same journalists who were cautioning a month ago that this may turn out to be a false alarm are now saying it isn't.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if we discard the Theory of Relativity then we need to re-think the very nature of causality.

Dave
 
MRC_Hans said:
Pompous, ehh? You don't "represent a theory", you have a private idea. With no evidence to show for it.

Hans
Click to expand...

Off course there is no evidence for this part of the theory, but notice it’s just one of hundreds consequences, and this as well doesn’t violate any laws of nature.

Rather you can say it fills one more huge hole in the existing paradigm, because the prevailing paradigm have even not a suggestion what dark energy really is.

So what I am saying is; - 1.) we more to learn, - 2.) and when it comes to the whether such can be detected or not, - well.. maybe.. I have never involve myself very deep into the question..
But if so only if one of the tube of the LIGO is hit “on its head” and the 2nd tube hit a split second later (by the same wave) , and only if the wave is pretty significant.
It will not surprise me, because the theory I represent is not an alternative to the theory of relativity, but rather a better and complete understanding of it.

Only SR have to be modified, Not GR (except that the curvature is not the cause of gravity)..

And YES, this aspect of the theory is 50 years ahead of our time.
We will in the coming decades slowly see that many pieces will come together, a new paradigm will take shape in the nearest future, and we will also conclude that the best option we will ever have, to close the gap, - what dark energy really is, - is that it is release of gravity (release of space tension) – so very simple is that.

All what we need right now is just to understand the nature of RR, as well the significant dark flow acceleration DFA
We will soon see that even though tension in space always is on the move, - the Universe can collapse from time to time.

Think about within few years dark flow will definitely be proven as a fact.
Off course a whole world will be begin to speculate, where it takes us.
The answer is that a collapse happens at the same time as tension in space is released.
These are parallels events with 2 opposite effects

Also think about the latest WMAB shows that the universe did most likely not start from a singularity (from nothing) - there was SOMETHING before.
Now tell me how could that SOMETHING explode?
If you are a true scientist it’s not enough that the Pope like the idea that it was nothing before the Big Bang, or that the explosion happened maybe because God was pressing the red bottom.

True scientists are looking for possible reasons, and are not satisfied before the find such.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
.......the theory I represent is not an alternative at the theory of relativity, but rather a better and complete understanding of it.......
Click to expand...

You have demonstrated endlessly that you don't understand Relativity, yet you choose to delude yourself that you offer a better understanding of it than.......you know.....people who do actually understand Relativity. Curious.
 
caveman1917 said:
True, but it does always make me go :rolleyes: when English-speaking people do that victory dance when a non-native speaker merely misuses the velocity or speed term, as if that means anything by itself. It's almost like they don't realize that they are the oddballs for having two different terms.
Click to expand...
What we're seeing here is someone claiming to do revolutionary science, misusing the well defined technical terminology of the field they are claiming to have both mastered and overturned.

Bjarne has been at great pains to draw up all the slack he would normally enjoy.
 
Bjarne said:
Off course there is no evidence for this part of the theory,
Click to expand...

There is no evidence for any part of your idea.

but notice it’s just one of hundreds consequences, and this as well doesn’t violate any laws of nature.
Click to expand...

Oh, it does. Actually, a new and revolutionary theory must break some rules, otherwise, what's new?

....

Seriously, Bjarne. Relativity is the holy grail of physics, and the BB is the same in cosmology.

Any half ambitious young scientist within those fields (and quite a few others) have wet dreams about putting a dent in those theories. If you do that, fame and fortune await, with the Nobel Prize just as a small fringe benefit. Do you get what I'm saying? This is how big it is.

Now, you have been spamming the internet with your "theory" for what? 5 years or so? You have even told the world that you had this idea, but needed someone to do the heavy (in this case meaning anything over primary school level) math for you.

Bjarne, seriously, that is the same as sitting down in a busy square in, say, Santiago with a trunk full of money and asking people to help you count it.:rolleyes:

If your "theory" had any value at all, someone would have stolen it long ago.

I'm sorry I'm a bit tough on you, but I really just try to help you...

Hans
 
MikeG said:
You have demonstrated endlessly that you don't understand Relativity, yet you choose to delude yourself that you offer a better understanding of it than.......you know.....people who do actually understand Relativity. Curious.
Click to expand...


I have demonstrates that I always will stick to the theories own logic, but I misunderstood in one single case whether the braking factor would mean "negative speed” or deceleration.. The different impact of a orbit is huge
 
Bjarne said:
I have demonstrates that I always will stick to the theories own logic, but I misunderstood in one single case whether the braking factor would mean "negative speed” or deceleration.. The different impact of a orbit is huge
Click to expand...

That is a rather bold statement when you know there are some here who have listened to you for 5 years. Bjarne you do not stick to the logic of the "theory" (assuming it has some logic at all), you are modifying it, adding ad hoc hypotheses all the time. You have done this again and again.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
That is a rather bold statement when you know there are some here who have listened to you for 5 years. Bjarne you do not stick to the logic of the "theory" (assuming it has some logic at all), you are modifying it, adding ad hoc hypotheses all the time. You have done this again and again.

Hans
Click to expand...

NO
I changed a small part of the theory according to mathematical rules, - as you can read we discussed above. I can ONLY use the Lorentz equation as a factor, - without units.

It took long time to understand this, because the result of using that factor is sometimes deceleration and sometimes negative speed. You will discover that too if you would use 10 minutes to ready the modified version..
http://science27.com/paper.pdf
 
Bjarne said:
NO
I changed a small part of the theory according to mathematical rules, - as you can read we discussed above. I can ONLY use the Lorentz equation as a factor, - without units.

It took long time to understand this, because the result of using that factor is sometimes deceleration and sometimes negative speed. You will discover that too if you would use 10 minutes to ready the modified version..
http://science27.com/paper.pdf
Click to expand...

Ah, well. Since I would not dream of accusing you of lying, I can only assume you have a poor memory, or that you don't understand your own claims.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
There is no evidence for any part of your idea.
Click to expand...
It depends. Flyby anomalies are evidence, and even galactic dynamic are too, as well as Allais effect. The fact that you don’t understand this yet is not important. Evidence means experiments that can be repeated, and the results predicted. This criterion is obtained when it comes to Allais Effect as well as flyby anomalies, (as well as the Pioneer anomalies, you thin k is solved) .. The fact that repeating such experience is pretty expensive is irrelevant, and not something you can blame me.

MRC_Hans said:
Oh, it does. Actually, a new and revolutionary theory must break some rules, otherwise, what's new?
Click to expand...
What dark energy really is will not be proven the next hundreds of years. This part can at least be theoretical understood. The revolutionary brake down, - step 1, will happen this year.

I expect you know about the prediction I made, which mean about 25% missing SR effect (faster time that) that SR cannot account for , - both when it comes to ISS, as well as Galileo 5 & 6.
RR and DFA will be proven as well.
There will be several reasons to do such specific test soon.
One reason is that the Elastic Universe theory, could predict a significant error in SR

timeandrr.jpg


Galileo 5 & 6 – Calculation, loss of Altitude
When the ISS moves from the Starting point ‘S’ and forwards to the RR Culmination point ‘C’ the ISS will feel increasing EDFA, hence decelerate and the object lose significant altitude. The average Lorentz factor (also used above for calculating time dilation) will be used again (factor 5,91e-11). Since the braking force trigger the same magnitude EDFA, the Lorentz factor is in the process converted to deceleration.

Estimated altitude loss - ISS satellite v= 7660 m/s - period 5561 seconds
Max speed lose per period = 1390 s. * 5,91e-11 m/s = 0,00000008 m/s
Average speed lose per period = 1390 s. * 5,91e-11 m/s /2 = 0,00000004 m/s
Orbit circumference lose per period = 1390 s. * 0,00000004 m = 0,00005560 meter
Radius lose per period = 1112 s.* 0,00000004 m/s /3,14/2 = 0,00000885 meter
2 periods = 2 * 0,00000885m. = 0.00001770 meter

Estimated altitude loss - GPS satellite altitude 21800 m. - v= 3800 m/s - period 46800 seconds
Max speed lose per period = 11700 s. * 4e-12 m/s = 0,000000047 m/s
Average speed lose per s. / period = 11700 s. * 4e-12 m/s /2 = 0,000000023 m/s
Orbit circumference lose per period = 11700 s. * 0,000000023 = 0,000273780 meter
Radius lose per period = 0,000273780m. /3,14/2 = 0,000044 meter
2 periods = 2 * 0,000044 = 0,000088 meter

Estimated altitude loss - Satellite orbiting Sun aligned with the dark flow axis (radius1,5 mio. Km)
Max speed loss per period = 7884000s * 1,69e-9 m/s = 0,0133 m/s
Average speed lose per s. / period = 7884000s * 1,69e-9 m/s/2 = 0,0066 m/s
Orbit circumference lose per period = 7884000s * 0,066 = 52523 meter
Radius loss per period = 83630/3,14/2 = 8363 meter
2 periods = 2 * 8363 = 16727 meter

The last three calculations (right above) are all based on orbit inclination aligned with the dark flow axis.
The loss of altitude are in these cases a deceleration (escalating) effect. It happens because motion away from the DFA will expose Effective Dark Flow Acceleration (EDFA).
But since orbits very rarely are inclined completely aligned with the DFA axis the altitude loss is much less.

The very last calculation shows a satellite orbits inclination aligned with the DFA axis, - the same distant from the Sun as the Earth, - such satellite wills loss a significant altitude and speed, and demonstrate the cause of flyby anomalies.

MRC_Hans said:
Seriously, Bjarne. Relativity is the holy grail of physics, and the BB is the same in cosmology.
Any half ambitious young scientist within those fields (and quite a few others) have wet dreams about putting a dent in those theories. If you do that, fame and fortune await, with the Nobel Prize just as a small fringe benefit. Do you get what I'm saying? This is how big it is.
Now, you have been spamming the internet with your "theory" for what? 5 years or so? You have even told the world that you had this idea, but needed someone to do the heavy (in this case meaning anything over primary school level) math for you.

Bjarne, seriously, that is the same as sitting down in a busy square in, say, Santiago with a trunk full of money and asking people to help you count it.:rolleyes:
If your "theory" had any value at all, someone would have stolen it long ago.
I'm sorry I'm a bit tough on you, but I really just try to help you...
Click to expand...
I do not need any math help anymore, as shown the latest days here at the forum only orbits more or less aligned with DFA , will decelerate, and collapse, - Not orbits more or less angular to the DFA axis..
Or in other words, the “negative speed” that impacts the Earth, onky result in 25mm shorter radius per year.
If RR would have a decelerating impact on the Earth the radius loss would be 16727meterper year, and so on for Mercury.
This is not the case.
Furthermore remember Max Planch was helping Einstein with his math, its not a shame.

MRC_Hans said:
There is no evidence for any part of your idea.
Click to expand...
It depends.
Flyby anomalies are evidence, and even galactic dynamic are too, as well as Allais effect.
The fact that you don’t understand this yet is not important.
Evidence, - means experiments that can be repeated, and the results predicted.
This criterion is obtained when it comes to Allais Effect as well as flyby anomalies, (as well as the Pioneer anomalies, you believe is solved) ..
The fact that repeating such experiments are pretty expensive is irrelevant, and not something you can blame me.

MRC_Hans said:
Oh, it does. Actually, a new and revolutionary theory must break some rules, otherwise, what's new?
Click to expand...
What dark energy really is perhaps never be proven.
This part can at least be theoretical understood very soon.

A major revolutionary brake down, - step 1, will happen this year.
This is not the first step to reach a new paradigm. Dark Flow and WMAP, is already sending choc waves in to the scientific foundations.

I expect about 25% missing SR effect (faster time) that SR cannot account for , - both when it comes to ISS, as well as Galileo 5 & 6.

The next that will happen is that RR and DFA will be proven as well, no doubt about it. Time will come soon.
Both RR as well as DFA can in one and the same experiment be tested by solar orbiting space probes.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne.

What do you hope to achieve here? You can't persuade anyone that any of your stuff is even worth reading, so going on and on is simply wasting your time.

If you really do have something new to say about cosmology, then get it damn well published and stop messing around with the trivia of an internet forum. You don't see other scientists discussing their breakthroughs on forums, do you, and that is for a reason. Put up or shut up, I'd say.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Ah, well. Since I would not dream of accusing you of lying, I can only assume you have a poor memory, or that you don't understand your own claims.

Hans
Click to expand...


No reason to lie, read above, - many pointed out that the equation I used here at the forum just few days ago was invalid. I never thought about only using it as a factor. I am not a educated mathematician..
And no bad memory too.
Sometimes it helps to see own (small errors) when discussing with serious people.
 
Bjarne said:
Max speed lose per period = 1390 s. * 5,91e-11 m/s = 0,00000008 m/s
Click to expand...

Three problems here. One, you are multiplying a value with units of seconds by a value with units of meters per second and producing a value with meters per second. Two, Lorentz factors are unitless, but you have yours with meters per second.

Third, you are using an equation without stating where it comes from. Please define the equation you are using and why you think it's valid. If there is some force acting against motion in a specific direction, wouldn't you need to integrate around the entire orbit, multiplying the two vectors together?
 
RussDill said:
Three problems here. One, you are multiplying a value with units of seconds by a value with units of meters per second and producing a value with meters per second. Two, Lorentz factors are unitless, but you have yours with meters per second.
Click to expand...

I see, so I have anyway to modify the Lorentz equation, but so that the units of the factor is meter
1 meter/√(1 – v²/c²)-1meter

RussDill said:
Third, you are using an equation without stating where it comes from. Please define the equation you are using and why you think it's valid. If there is some force acting against motion in a specific direction, wouldn't you need to integrate around the entire orbit, multiplying the two vectors together?
Click to expand...
The force is acting against any direction, but it can only be understood in an absolute motion reference frame. Which mean if the object moves opposite, - for example opposite the dark flow direction, the resistance against motion is reduced..
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
I see, so I have anyway to modify the Lorentz equation, but so that the units of the factor is meter
1 meter/√(1 – v²/c²)-1meter
Click to expand...

1) So why do the units of the factor is a meter?
2) What in your model specifically refers to a length of 1 meter?


Bjarne said:
The force is acting against any direction, but it can only be understood in an absolute motion reference frame. Which mean if the object moves opposite, - for example opposite the dark flow direction, the resistance against motion is reduced..
Click to expand...

So the resistance in the absolute motion reference frame still has to be integrated around the whole path.

You haven't addressed the original questions.
 
Bjarne said:
I see, so I have anyway to modify the Lorentz equation, but so that the units of the factor is meter
1 meter/√(1 – v²/c²)-1meter
Click to expand...

OK. You've made up an equation. When v is 0, the equation equals 0 meters. As v approaches c, the equation approaches infinity meters. You've also inserted the physical constant 1 meter into your equation. Can you explain how you derived this physical constant? Can you explain the enormous cosmic coincidence that the value of this constant is exactly 1/299792458th the speed of light and that it matches the arbitrary value we have chosen for the meter?

Can you show any experimental data that matches this equation?

The force is acting against any direction, but it can only be understood in an absolute motion reference frame. Which mean if the object moves opposite, - for example opposite the dark flow direction, the resistance against motion is reduced..
Click to expand...

You've now multiplied seconds times meters. This produces a quantities in meter * seconds. You show the output of the equation as meters / seconds.
 
Darwin123 said:
So the resistance in the absolute motion reference frame still has to be integrated around the whole path
Click to expand...

Not only that, but as it travels around the path, the force would cause the velocity to change, as the velocity changes, both the force and the orbit would change, which would modify the force and velocity.
 
Bjarne said:
The force is acting against any direction, but it can only be understood in an absolute motion reference frame. Which mean if the object moves opposite, - for example opposite the dark flow direction, the resistance against motion is reduced..
Click to expand...

There is no resistance against motion.
There is no absolute motion reference frame.

Hans :rolleyes:
 
Bjarne, the fact you don't know SR is contained within GR does not bode well for successful pontification on those topics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom