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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bjarne said:
So what is energy ?
Click to expand...
Energy is not an ignorant fantasy, Bjarne. It has a meaning in physics:
In physics, energy is a property of objects which can be transferred to other objects or converted into different forms.[1] The "ability of a system to perform work" is a common description, but it is misleading because energy is not necessarily available to do work.[2] For instance, in SI units, energy is measured in joules, and one joule is defined "mechanically", being the energy transferred to an object by the mechanical work of moving it a distance of 1 metre against a force of 1 newton.[note 1] However, there are many other definitions of energy, depending on the context, such as thermal energy, radiant energy, electromagnetic, nuclear, etc., where definitions are derived that are the most convenient.
Click to expand...
 
Bjarne said:
Copy / Paste 1 week BEFORE Gravitational waves was found...
Click to expand...
The question is: Have you stated that gravitational waves (as predicted by GR and not predicted by you) have been detected in this thread, Bjarne.

N.B. vague expectations expressed incoherently are not predictions.
 
Reality Check said:
The question is: Have you stated that gravitational waves (as predicted by GR and not predicted by you) have been detected in this thread, Bjarne.

N.B. vague expectations expressed incoherently are not predictions.
Click to expand...

There are 2 kind og gravitational waves
  1. One which is now measured
  2. The other, - left after Big Bang, which I have made very clear is impossible to measure and never will..
 
Bjarne said:
There are 2 kind og gravitational waves
  1. One which is now measured
  2. The other, - left after Big Bang, which I have made very clear is impossible to measure and never will..
Click to expand...

So called Dark Energy = A huge release of a gravitational waves.
So a Gravitational wave is a different expression of Matter / Energy
And therefore RC, so soon you get to that point u2 will know that ENERGY in its very basic nature is nothing but absorbed space..

You see ?

Nothing but NOTHING
 
Bjarne said:
Energy is not physical only matter "seems to be"
Click to expand...

Whether you consider energy “physical” or not wasn’t the question.
Here is the question again…
The Man said:
OK so energy isn’t “(nothing)” as you claimed before?
Click to expand...




Bjarne said:
So called Dark Energy = A huge release of a gravitational waves.
So a Gravitational wave is a different expression of Matter / Energy
And therefore RC, so soon you get to that point u2 will know that ENERGY in its very basic nature is nothing but absorbed space..

You see ?

Nothing but NOTHING
Click to expand...

So are you now claiming that your “absorbed space” isn’t physical? As you’ve claimed above that “matter is made of absorbed space” that too would be non-physical. Likewise for your deformation due to your claimed elastic property of space as that was asserted to result from your “absorbed space”.

Wasn’t energy “a vibration of the elastic property of space”? So that would be a non-physical vibration of the elastic property of space resulting from a non-physical absorption of space.

I suppose the simpler question to ask is if there is anything in your notion of physics that you would assert as, well, “physical”?

Just a tip, claiming your assertions about physics to not be physical will not free them from the need for self-consistency nor free them of the direct contradiction thus asserted.

Again no one can agree with you until you can at least agree with yourself.
 
Bjarne said:
So called Dark Energy = A huge release of a gravitational waves.
So a Gravitational wave is a different expression of Matter / Energy
And therefore RC, so soon you get to that point u2 will know that ENERGY in its very basic nature is nothing but absorbed space..

You see ?

Nothing but NOTHING
Click to expand...

Bjarne,:
Daylightstar said:
Do you now agree that matter exists?
Click to expand...

Do you?
 
The Man said:
Wasn’t energy “a vibration of the elastic property of space”? So that would be a non-physical vibration of the elastic property of space resulting from a non-physical absorption of space.
Click to expand...
Well you have 2 kind of "vibration of the elastic property of space"
  • One of these are known as EM Waves (radiation) and can be compared to (soft) waves on the (soft) ocean. Instead og water these are made of space.
  • The other have more hard core properties, - (elementary particle). Now we talk about much stronger "energy involvement" in space ,- the strong nuclear interaction.
..

I suppose the simpler question to ask is if there is anything in your notion of physics that you would assert as, well, “physical”?
Click to expand...

Energy, Matter and even the word Physical are not clearly define properties of nature - rather only words, / expressions of a language, only able to allow us to have a limit imagination of the true meaning...

Just a tip, claiming your assertions about physics to not be physical will not free them from the need for self-consistency nor free them of the direct contradiction thus asserted.
Click to expand...
I will not call it a "contradiction"

Nature is just a bit difficult to understand, - on deeper levels...
Everything seems to be made of ("elastic space"), - what we normally call nothing.
Our understanding could very well be build on a wrong conclusion..
So, maybe the big "nothing" is the wrong word, because if space instead is "something" - everything is instead made of "something" (none physical "something" off course)

The nature of space play a key role in gravity, as well in the strong nuclear interaction, and therefore in the creation.
Space seems to be the common denominator for everything.
So instead of saying; Space is nothing, (like you and the world is used to think) - space could instead "something" (and in the end of the day even everything).....

Don't worry if I confuse you, this is part of the game

I still wonder and keeps my eyes and ears open..
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
There are 2 kind og gravitational waves
  1. One which is now measured
  2. The other, - left after Big Bang, which I have made very clear is impossible to measure and never will..
Click to expand...
Not right. There is 1 kind of gravitational wave. There are many possible sources of gravitational waves.

22 June 2016 Bjarne: Can you show us evidence (other than your imagination) that gravitational waves from the inflationary period are impaoiisble?
 
Bjarne said:
But unless you understand the what ENERGY really is "made of" you will also not be able to unite the 4 forces.
Click to expand...
But unless you learn science, the ignorance will continue from you Bjarne :jaw-dropp!
  • ENERGY is not a thing.
    We cannot fill a bucket with kinetic energy!
  • The 4 forces being united has nothing to do with your ignorance about ENERGY.
 
Bjarne said:
So called Dark Energy = A huge release of a gravitational waves.
Click to expand...
Now we have a fantasy about dark energy being gravitational waves!
We see an ever increasing list of ignorance and delusions from you, Bjarne.

22 June 2016 Bjarne: A fantasy about dark energy being gravitational waves revealing deep ignorance abut both!

The RR fantasy appearing on 15 October 2009 here, continued ignorance of high school level science and digging a pit of fantasies from Bjarne.

17 June 2016 Bjarne: 17 irrelevant, ignorant and deluded items (and a couple of lies) in one post!
20 June 2016 Bjarne: Ignorance about [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter"]matter (it is things like atoms and is not his current obsession with the word nothing!).[/URL]
20 June 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that virtual particles are nothing (they are basically particles that exist for a short time)!
20 June 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that bad and irrelevant Einstein and Planck quotes in images are science textbooks!

1 June 2016 Bjarne:A lie about a calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes leaving the solar system, e.g. Voyager 1 and 2.
1 June 2016 Bjarne: A lie about a calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes in a n Earth flyby.[/QUOTE]
 
Reality Check said:
Not right. There is 1 kind of gravitational wave. There are many possible sources of gravitational waves.

22 June 2016 Bjarne: Can you show us evidence (other than your imagination) that gravitational waves from the inflationary period are impaoiisble?
Click to expand...

Not impossible, but impossible to detect.
These comes from all direction and effect the earth in such a way that everything here shrinks.
Time, the ruler, any process, - everything....
Which mean you have nothing to measure relative to.

If you could compare today and yesterday, a clock yesterday would tick just a little bit slower, and 1 meter, a littler bit larger..

The problem is, yesterdays reality is gone..
 
Reality Check said:
But unless you learn science, the ignorance will continue from you Bjarne :jaw-dropp!
  • ENERGY is not a thing.
    We cannot fill a bucket with kinetic energy!
  • The 4 forces being united has nothing to do with your ignorance about ENERGY.
Click to expand...

The bucket IS energy
And you can put more ENERGY into it.
ENERGY can take shape, - this is what you call mass.
ENERGY is involved in the strong nuclear interaction
Gravity is a side effect, just revealing elastic space is stretching towards space absorbing matter.
Uniting Gravity and the strong force is a piece of cake..
The electron is part of the "dance" - Left is only decay, I will spend some time on that later
 
Daylightstar said:
Do you now disagree with what it says about there being no matter?
Click to expand...

Einstein and Max Planch was friends,
Max was helping Einstein a lot,
Off course they also agree which each other.
History shows no disagreement between them.
E=Mc^2 is a result from such consideration, since both did not believe matter was "real matter".

In contrary Einstein did not always agree with Niles Bohr, we know that too..
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
Einstein and Max Planch was friends,
Max was helping Einstein a lot,
Off course they also agree which each other.
History shows no disagreement between them.
E=Mc^2 is a result from such consideration, since both did not believe matter was "real matter".

In contrary Einstein did not always agree with Niles Bohr, we know that too..
Click to expand...
The question is whether you now disagree with the quote about there not being matter.

Well, do you?
 
Bjarne said:
Not impossible, but impossible to detect.
These comes from all direction and effect the earth in such a way that everything here shrinks.
Time, the ruler, any process, - everything....
Which mean you have nothing to measure relative to.

If you could compare today and yesterday, a clock yesterday would tick just a little bit slower, and 1 meter, a littler bit larger..

The problem is, yesterdays reality is gone..
Click to expand...

You must be joking (I know your science is at best highly questionable but the above is way past just highly questionable).
 
Bjarne said:
Well you have 2 kind of "vibration of the elastic property of space"
  • One of these are known as EM Waves (radiation) and can be compared to (soft) waves on the (soft) ocean. Instead og water these are made of space.
  • The other have more hard core properties, - (elementary particle). Now we talk about much stronger "energy involvement" in space ,- the strong nuclear interaction.
..
Click to expand...

"made of space"? Weren't you claiming space was nothing? How does nothing vibrate?

You seem to be confusing the media a wave travels in for the wave being made of that media.

You are simply pulling nonsense out of your arse as opposed to actually learning the subject mater.

For your own edification energy has the units of Newton Meter and can be directly related to a force applied through some distance. So not nothing, not just space and no requirement of vibration.




Bjarne said:
Energy, Matter and even the word Physical are not clearly define properties of nature - rather only words, / expressions of a language, only able to allow us to have a limit imagination of the true meaning...
Click to expand...

What the words are meant to represent is not "imagination" but rather those "properties of nature". Once again you seem to confuse your imagination for "the true meaning" and intent of those words as well as those "properties of nature"

Bjarne said:
I will not call it a "contradiction"
Click to expand...

What you refuse to call it is irrelavent.
Bjarne said:
Nature is just a bit difficult to understand, - on deeper levels...
Everything seems to be made of ("elastic space"), - what we normally call nothing.
Click to expand...

No one but you has called space nothing, stop trying to blame your flawed thinking on others or pretend that it is in anyway normal. You want to call space nothing fine that's your problem but then how does nothing have elastic properties?


Bjarne said:
Our understanding could very well be build on a wrong conclusion..
So, maybe the big "nothing" is the wrong word, because if space instead is "something" - everything is instead made of "something" (none physical "something" off course)
Click to expand...

Great, so if you now think "nothing" is the wrong word then stop using it in reference to space, energy and mater and certainly stop trying to blame others for your erroneous use. Again if you are going to assert physics as "none physical" you are engaging in a direct contradiction.


Bjarne said:
The nature of space play a key role in gravity, as well in the strong nuclear interaction, and therefore in the creation.
Space seems to be the common denominator for everything.
Click to expand...

Space time is the canvas in which the physical universe plays out. It is the relative locations of physical events.

Bjarne said:
So instead of saying; Space is nothing, (like you and the world is used to think) - space could instead "something" (and in the end of the day even everything).....
Click to expand...

"you and the world"? Again stop tying to blame others for your erroneous assertions. Don't like your idea that "Space is nothing" now, well, great stop using it and perhaps learn how space is defined in both the physical and abstract sense (I gave them upthread).



Bjarne said:
Don't worry if I confuse you, this is part of the game
Click to expand...

I'm neither worried nor confused, though that you evidently confuse yourself should at least worry you. Again not too hard to correct, just start actually learning the subject mater as opposed to just imagining it and playing some "game".


Bjarne said:
I still wonder and keeps my eyes and ears open..
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem to be helping you, so it is either inadequate or you are doing it wrong.
 
Bjarne said:
Einstein and Max Planch was friends, ...
Click to expand...
You do not understand, Bjarne.
What you did was post 3 images (not quotes!)
  1. The first image's text is a lie - it is not a quote from Einstein.
  2. The second image's text is dubious - it may not be a quote from Einstein.
  3. The third image's text is Planck talking about religion, not science.
Do not tell us that Einstein and Max Planck and millions of people who have learned physics are stupid.
People who learn physics know that E=mc^2 does not state that matter does not exist.
People who learn physics know that E=mc^2 means that energy and mass (which is not matter) can be treated as the same (equivalent - thus this is the energy-mass equivalence formula).
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
The bucket IS energy...
Click to expand...
Even more ignorance of high school level science and delusions from Bjarne :jaw-dropp!

23 June 2016 Bjarne: Does not seem to even know what kinetic energy is (the energy of moving bodies, e.g. bullets) eek:!
23 June 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that kinetic energy (the energy of moving bodies, e.g. bullets) can be put into a bucket.
23 June 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that kinetic energy (the energy of moving bodies, e.g. bullets) is the equivalent energy of the mass of a bucket.
23 June 2016 Bjarne: Repeated ignorance of what ENERGY (in his dumb uppercase) is!
23 June 2016 Bjarne: The almost 7 year delusion about " space is stretching" with added gibberish.
23 June 2016 Bjarne: Reveals abysmal ignorance of physics with "Uniting Gravity and the strong force is a piece of cake"

Scientists have been trying to write a theory of everything for decades and have failed because it is extremely complex. It is truly deluded for someone who does not even know high school level science to think that they can do this :jaw-dropp!

The RR fantasy appearing on 15 October 2009 here, continued ignorance of high school level science and digging a pit of fantasies from Bjarne.

  1. 17 June 2016 Bjarne: 17 irrelevant, ignorant and deluded items (and a couple of lies) in one post!
  2. 20 June 2016 Bjarne: Ignorance about [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter"]matter (it is things like atoms and is not his current obsession with the word nothing!).[/URL]
  3. 20 June 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that virtual particles are nothing (they are basically particles that exist for a short time)!
  4. 20 June 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that bad and irrelevant Einstein and Planck quotes in images are science textbooks!
  5. 22 June 2016 Bjarne: A fantasy about dark energy being gravitational waves revealing deep ignorance abut both!


1 June 2016 Bjarne:A lie about a calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes leaving the solar system, e.g. Voyager 1 and 2.
1 June 2016 Bjarne: A lie about a calculation of the direction and magnitude of the acceleration of space probes in a n Earth flyby.[/QUOTE]
 
The Man said:
"made of space"? Weren't you claiming space was nothing? How does nothing vibrate?
Click to expand...
As per definition space is no–thing (shortened to the expression NOTHING)..
I think 99,99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 % of the citizen on planet Earth will agree about such definition.…
In the late 1800 the nature of the - ””elastic space theory”” - (the so called ether theory) - was rejected ONLY based on a wrong interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
And this is the reason to that a lot more was misunderstood. First at all SR

Within 1½ year we will all understand that the interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment was wrong and that was no reason to reject that ether theory.

I do agree with the majority and with the definition that space is “no-thing” – (nothing).
My opinion is that space rather is “something” we really haven’t understood, - furthermore that the biggest mistake in this last century was to reject the Ether theory.
 
Reality Check said:
You do not understand, Bjarne.
What you did was post 3 images (not quotes!)
  1. The first image's text is a lie - it is not a quote from Einstein.
  2. The second image's text is dubious - it may not be a quote from Einstein.
  3. The third image's text is Planck talking about religion, not science.
Click to expand...

In Denmark we have a saying ; Thiefs believe everyone steals.
I just made a new one; Liars believe everybody is lying
quote-the-most-beautiful-thing-we-can-experience-is-the-mysterious-it-is-the-source-of-all-true-art-and-albert-einstein-296540.jpg
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
In Denmark we have a saying ; Thiefs believe everyone steals.
I just made a new one; Liars believe everybody is lying
[qimg]http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-the-most-beautiful-thing-we-can-experience-is-the-mysterious-it-is-the-source-of-all-true-art-and-albert-einstein-296540.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Those are the two things we have seen you do in this thread.

So, Bjarne, could you finally act like a grown up and have the decency to give a normal answer to the question as to whether you now disagree with the quote about there being no matter.
 
Bjarne said:
As per definition space is no–thing (shortened to the expression NOTHING)..
I think 99,99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 % of the citizen on planet Earth will agree about such definition.…
Click to expand...

Again stop trying to blame your own lack of thinking on others. If there were nothing other than space-time the universe would be empty but there would still be a universe. You have been given both the physical and mathematical definitions of space. Even before you asserted that "nothing" might not be the best choice of words. Up thread you bemoaned ….
Bjarne said:
I wonder why you want to discuss nothing so much?
Click to expand...
You’re the only one who continues to assert nothing, if you don’t like it stop doing it.

There’s an old joke where a man goes to the doctor and says “Doc it hurts when I do this,, (moving his arm)”. The doctor replies “Stop doing that.”.


I also see you ignored the question you quoted, so here it is again.
The Man said:
How does nothing vibrate?
Click to expand...





Bjarne said:
In the late 1800 the nature of the - ””elastic space theory”” - (the so called ether theory) - was rejected ONLY based on a wrong interpretation of the
Michelson-Morley experiment.
And this is the reason to that a lot more was misunderstood. First at all SR
Within 1½ year we will all understand that the interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment was wrong and that was no reason to reject that ether theory.
Click to expand...

Michelson-Morley experiment wasn’t the only reason the aether was rejected. Part of the problem was it just didn’t work. Trying to calculate the properties of such an aether gave nonsensical results and calculated results from just ascribed properties didn’t agree with experiments and observation.
Try it yourself…Here is the basis of bulk elastic properties, the bulk modulus…

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulk_modulus
Give your elastic space some actual elastic properties and see what happens. Stop just bemoaning and asserting what you say you don’t agree with yourself and finally try to find out if what you do agree with has any chance of working.

Bjarne said:
I do agree with the majority and with the definition that space is “no-thing” – (nothing).
Click to expand...
Great, then how is nothing vibrated and or absorbed. How do you distinguish between vibrating and/or absorbing nothing and not vibrating and/or absorbing anything?

Bjarne said:
My opinion is that space rather is “something” we really haven’t understood, - furthermore that the biggest mistake in this last century was to reject the Ether theory.
Click to expand...
OK so now you don’t agree that space is nothing as you just said above. You seem to be deliberately trying to confuse yourself.

Furthermore, if you think an aether theory can work then it is up to you to get an aether theory to work or find one that does work. Simply and repeatedly asserting elastic and/or absorbed space doesn’t do that.
 
The Man said:
Great, then how is nothing vibrated and or absorbed. How do you distinguish between vibrating and/or absorbing nothing and not vibrating and/or absorbing anything?
Click to expand...
How would you prove that the universe still was there?
No starts, no light, no EMW, no rulers, no measurement devices.
Come on man, be serious.

Watch this to the end..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Trying to calculate the properties of such an aether gave nonsensical results and calculated results from just ascribed properties didn’t agree with experiments and observation.
Try it yourself…Here is the basis of bulk elastic properties, the bulk modulus…
Click to expand...
You have no idea what the nature of space really is, - even to imagine an experiment able to rejects something you don’t know , must be considered as madness.

Rejection of the ether based on one single physical experiment ( Michelson-Morley experiment) only confirms how far we have been from understanding the nature of space. – And exactly that part will soon be PROVEN.

Failing understanding that dark energy is not some strange unknown mysterious energy, but simple release of space tension, (caused by gravity), and the exact same as a gravitational waves is one more huge broad hint that proves how inane the scientific society have been the last century.

Failing understanding that gravity is caused by the elastic property of space, proves total lack of intuition.

And now you try to tell me we can reject ether because of a pressure speculation (thesis) , -- what a load of rubbish.

GR is when quantified an infinity sequence of NONSENSE, - THIS is the only alternative you have.

WATCH this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouXX2R8fq_0
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
...
Rejection of the ether based on one single physical experiment ( Michelson-Morley experiment) only confirms how far we have been form understanding the nature of space. – And exactly that part will soon be PROVEN.
...
Click to expand...

Ehm:
Daylightstar said:
:big:


tik tak tik tak 2016 .... nothing.
tik tak tik tak 2017 .... nothing.
tik tak tik tak 2018 .... nothing.
tik tak tik tak 2019 .... nothing.
...
tik tak tik tak 2024 .... nothing.

etc.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom