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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bjarne said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your reply doesn't seem to be related to what you quoted. If you are talking about the hypothetical empty universe mentioned before, it's a stated part of the hypothetical. Be serous yourself, to whom would you have to prove anything to in such a universe?

Bjarne said:
Watch this to the end..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
Click to expand...
No thanks, I’m quite familiar with the double slit experiment and the video “What the Bleep Do We Know”.
If you have something you would like to say I suggest you just say it.

Bjarne said:
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.
Click to expand...
Evidently you have no idea what the nature of experimentation and observation really is, it’s to find out what you don’t know or at least to disprove what you think you know.
Bjarne said:
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.
Click to expand...
Read what you quoted the aeather wasn’t rejected “based on one single physical experiment” that was just another nail in an already inescapable coffin
Bjarne said:
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.
Click to expand...
You failing to show that “gravity is caused by the elastic property of space” or that space even has such properties doesn’t prove any of your baseless assertions. You have a lot of work to do.
Bjarne said:
And now you try to tell me we can reject ether because of a pressure speculation (thesis) , -- what a load of rubbish.
Click to expand...
Where did I tell you any such thing? I don’t even know what “a pressure speculation (thesis)” even refers to, talk about a load of rubbish. Look I’m just trying to give you the tools to actually understand what you’re talking about, in this case elastic properties. If you can’t use or can’t be bothered to use elastic properties in your assertions about space having and gravity resulting from such elastic properties, that’s no one’s problem but yours
Bjarne said:
GR is when quantified an infinity sequence of NONSENSE, - THIS is the only alternative you have.
Click to expand...
False dichotomy

As your assertions are just self-contrary nonsense even when not “quantified”, you’ve presented no “alternative”.

Bjarne said:
WATCH this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouXX2R8fq_0
Click to expand...
No thanks, I’m quite familiar with the current incompatibility of relativity and QM, I even mentioned it specifically before.

Again if you actually have something to say here then I recommend you actually say it here instead of asking people to find it in some boobtube you link.

Just imagining your assertions combine QM and GR is not the same as, well, combining QM and GR.
 
Bjarne said:
I just made a new one; Liars believe everybody is lying
Click to expand...
Insults do not make the documented ignorance and fantasies that you have written vanish. This is the Internet - they will exist forever for everyone in the world to read, Bjarne.
What would make them "vanish" is signs that you have learned science (e.g. what kinetic energy is), the honesty to say that you have made mistakes, and answering questions. For example not supporting your assertion about having calculations after many days made them into lies (see the bottom of the post). Even now, stating clearly that the calculations do not exist (and so you have no explanations of probe or flyby anomalies) will remove the items. Or you could answer:
22 June 2016 Bjarne: Can you show us evidence (other than your imagination) that gravitational waves from the inflationary period are impossible to detect?

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 matter (it is things like atoms and is not his current obsession with the word nothing!).
  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 about both!
  6. 23 June 2016 Bjarne: Does not seem to even know what kinetic energy is (the energy of moving bodies, e.g. bullets) eek:!
  7. 23 June 2016 Bjarne: The delusion that kinetic energy (the energy of moving bodies, e.g. bullets) can be put into a bucket.
  8. 23 June 2016 Bjarne: What looks like a delusion that kinetic energy is the equivalent energy of mass (of a bucket).
  9. 23 June 2016 Bjarne: Repeated ignorance of what ENERGY (in his uppercase) is!
  10. 23 June 2016 Bjarne: The almost 7 year delusion about " space is stretching" with added gibberish.
  11. 23 June 2016 Bjarne: Reveals abysmal ignorance of physics with "Uniting Gravity and the strong force is a piece of cake"
  12. 23 June 2016 Bjarne: A lie about science having NOTHING about dark energy. Science has explanations, e.g. a non-zero cosmological constant.

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.
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
Watch this to the end..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
Click to expand...
Do you know how ignorant of physics linking to a Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment video makes you look, Bjarne? This is a child-level explanation of the double slit experiment.
The video has nothing to do with the gibberish before it in your post or the delusions, ignorance, and gibberish after it in the post.

You end with a 29 second video "quote mined" from a longer video with stupid text and a lying description added by some deluded crank. The crank lies about this video. That lie pop ups up on plenty of crank web sites.
That you cannot tell the difference between science and a deluded crank lying by "quote mining" a video makes ignorance about physics even clearer, Bjarne.

This is a well respected physicist Michio Kaku explaining physics that has been known for almost a century. GR solutions can have mathematical singularities. This is basically where things such as density increase without limit. Kaku "dumbs down" this for the audience with dividing by infinity (infinity is not a number so we cannot divide by it). This tells us that at very small scales GR breaks down. Knowledgeable, rational people know about quantum mechanics and the expectation that a quantum gravity theory will remove the singularities.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Do you know how ignorant of physics linking to a Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment video makes you look, Bjarne? This is a child-level explanation of the double slit experiment.
The video has nothing to do with the gibberish before it in your post or the delusions, ignorance, and gibberish after it in the post.

You end with a 29 second video "quote mined" from a longer video with stupid text and a lying description added by some deluded crank. The crank lies about this video. That lie pop ups up on plenty of crank web sites.
That you cannot tell the difference between science and a deluded crank lying by "quote mining" a video makes ignorance about physics even clearer, Bjarne.
Click to expand...

I did not notice any crank or liar popping up anywhere.
But it is well noted that that you is haunted by liars and cranks..
I cannot tell you why, but I would also be a bit paranoid if I saw liars and cranks doesn't matter where I looked
Are you sure the cranks and liars are real ? I wish I could help you...
Have you blocked your pop up, check this before alerting specialist.

Honestly noting is wrong here..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc


This is a well respected physicist Michio Kaku explaining physics that has been known for almost a century. GR solutions can have mathematical singularities. This is basically where things such as density increase without limit. Kaku "dumbs down" this for the audience with dividing by infinity (infinity is not a number so we cannot divide by it). This tells us that at very small scales GR breaks down. Knowledgeable, rational people know about quantum mechanics and the expectation that a quantum gravity theory will remove the singularities.
Click to expand...

The well respected physicist Michio_Kaku try to tell you that there is a fundamental flaw in GR. I am sure it dosent impress you.
Better start look for a replacement of GR (and SR)– Dear..
Was there any liars and cranks hunting you in this video as well?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouXX2R8fq_0
 
Last edited:
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.…

...snip
Click to expand...

Wouldn't this leave like a homeopathic quantity of a person?

I see why you don't do math.
 
Last edited:
slyjoe said:
Wouldn't this leave like a homeopathic quantity of a person?

I see why you don't do math.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that if the prediction I made turns out to be correct, the rest of the world must be treated for homeopathic quantities.

Well maybe not so bad an idea, but at the same time, do you think it is possible to heal the damage due to 100 years massive collective brainwashed, indoctrination and massive propaganda?
 
Bjarne said:
The well respected physicist Michio_Kaku try to tell you that there is a fundamental flaw in GR.
Click to expand...



No, he is saying there is a fundamental limitation to GR. Try to understand the distinction.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Bjarne said:
So what you are saying is that if the prediction I made turns out to be correct, the rest of the world must be treated for homeopathic quantities.

Well maybe not so bad an idea, but at the same time, do you think it is possible to heal the damage due to 100 years massive collective brainwashed, indoctrination and massive propaganda?
Click to expand...

Bjarne, according to you, which of the following is correct?
  1. There is matter
  2. There is no matter

Or, alternatively:
  1. You now disagree with the quote about there being no matter
  2. You agree with the quote about there being no matter

Both numbers 1 correspond to each other, same for the numbers 2. If you need help with this question, don't hesitate to ask for help.
 
Bjarne said:
Daylightstar said:
Bjarne, according to you, which of the following is correct?
  1. There is matter
  2. There is no matter

Or, alternatively:
  1. You now disagree with the quote about there being no matter
  2. You agree with the quote about there being no matter

Both numbers 1 correspond to each other, same for the numbers 2. If you need help with this question, don't hesitate to ask for help.
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc
Click to expand...

This can almost only mean that your answer would be 2, is that correct, Bjarne?
Unless you did not understand the question.

Or is it perhaps that the answer is indeed 2 and that you are ashamed of your belief of there not being matter?
Or perhaps you are ashamed of not understanding a very simple question???
 
Bjarne said:
Rubbish
He use the word FLAW
Click to expand...



Kaku is wont to use hyperbole and exaggeration because it makes what he says more interesting for a general audience. Or, as RC told you, Kaku "dumbs it down". I try to avoid Kaku because of this; he too often sacrifices accuracy in order to spice things up, IMO. The real physicists in the thread can correct me but I think it's correct to say GR makes accurate predictions everywhere in the universe except in black holes.

But of course you will cling like a drowning man to his hype; you are quite impervious to facts and learning.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Daylightstar said:
This can almost only mean that your answer would be 2, is that correct, Bjarne?
Unless you did not understand the question.

Or is it perhaps that the answer is indeed 2 and that you are ashamed of your belief of there not being matter?
Or perhaps you are ashamed of not understanding a very simple question???
Click to expand...

If you see a ghost, -and there was no doubt, - it was real ?
Was it only real for you ?
Or is it really real for both you and some others ?
Or is it really real for both you and many others ?
Or is it really real for both you and the majority?
Let’s say the majority believe “there is something about it” – Are the majority crazy or able to see something real ?
What is a ghost ?
What is it made of ?
Why do I expect you to be a experts ion ghost?

What about all the liars and chranks RC can see everywhere around, are these real ?
 
ferd burfle said:
Kaku is wont to use hyperbole and exaggeration because it makes what he says more interesting for a general audience. Or, as RC told you, Kaku "dumbs it down". I try to avoid Kaku because of this; he too often sacrifices accuracy in order to spice things up, IMO. The real physicists in the thread can correct me but I think it's correct to say GR makes accurate predictions everywhere in the universe except in black holes.

But of course you will cling like a drowning man to his hype; you are quite impervious to facts and learning.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Or you and RC pretend that Kaku is one of the chranks , - liars popping up (like ghosts) everywhere ?
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
So what you are saying is that if the prediction I made turns out to be correct, ...
Click to expand...

You haven't made a proper prediction.
Your prediction isn't supported by data nor is your prediction preceded by any form of intellectual rigor.

In essence, your prediction is psychic in nature, nothing more than that.



E.T.A.: Are you psychic, Bjarne?
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
If you see a ghost, -and there was no doubt, - it was real ?
Was it only real for you ?
Or is it really real for both you and some others ?
Or is it really real for both you and many others ?
Or is it really real for both you and the majority?
Let’s say the majority believe “there is something about it” – Are the majority crazy or able to see something real ?
What is a ghost ?
What is it made of ?
Why do I expect you to be a experts ion ghost?

What about all the liars and chranks RC can see everywhere around, are these real ?
Click to expand...

I notice you go through rather great lengths to not answer the question about your position on the existence of matter.
Does the question cause you that great psychological turmoil?

Is there matter, Bjarne?
 
Bjarne said:
Or you and RC pretend that Kaku is one of the chranks , - liars popping up (like ghosts) everywhere ?
Click to expand...



That's not what I said, Bjarne, please be a good chap and don't try to put words in my mouth. I said Kaku exaggerates for effect, nothing more. If you'd stop jousting with windmills for a minute and read what people actually say you might learn something about the world around you.

Ever wonder why your front yard isn't full of science reporters with TV cameras and hot babes wearing smart-girl glasses? Hint: it's not because there's a conspiracy suppressing your ideas.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Bjarne said:
I did not notice any crank or liar popping up anywhere.
Click to expand...
Honestly you have cited a lying, deluded crank again, Bjarne.
27 June 2016 Bjarne: Again cites a 29 second video "quote mined" from a longer video with stupid text and a lying description added by some deluded crank.

The lies are about the words of Michio Kaku in that 29 second clip. This is explained in what I wrote:
This is a well respected physicist Michio Kaku explaining physics that has been known for almost a century (and is learned by anyone who learns physics).
He is not stating that GR is wrong - just that it does not work at singularities.

The lies are in the description:
Everything we are told about black holes, the big bang theory, etc. rely on infinity, infinity is impossible in reality, so forget about the new Gravity Wave theory and all the other nonsense that astrophysics research, the astrophysicists don't know anything about the universe and they admit it.
Click to expand...
Black holes exist even without a singularity - all they need is a dense enough sphere.
The Big Bang theory starts with the universe in a hot dense state because we know that GR does not work at singularities,
There is no imaginary "new Gravity Wave theory".
There is the delusion and insult about astrophysicists.

The author is a deluded crank: "My Concave and Flat earth friends ..."
 
Bjarne said:
Rubbish
Click to expand...
A "flaw" that have been known for almost a century does not mean that GR does not work. We have extensive tests of GR that show that GR works, including the detection of gravitational waves :jaw-dropp!

A lie by quote mining (like that deluded crank quote mining a longer video).
This well known feature of GR is a "fundamental flaw in the formulation Einstein's theory". The feature suggests that there is a better formulation of GR that will have the same predictions (black holes, Big Bang, gravitational waves, etc.) for scales bigger than say the Planck length and not have singularities.
 
Bjarne said:
What about all the liars and chranks RC can see everywhere around, are these real ?
Click to expand...
I see 2 real cranks who are also liars in this thread, Bjarne.
22 June 2016 Bjarne: Can you show us evidence (other than your imagination) that gravitational waves from the inflationary period are impossible to detect?

The RR fantasy appearing on 15 October 2009 here, continued ignorance of high school level science and digging a pit of fantasies from Bjarne (44 items of ignorance, fantasy and delusion in this thread alone!).

27 June 2016 Bjarne: Again cites a 29 second video "quote mined" from a longer video with stupid text and a lying description added by some deluded crank.

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.
 
Bjarne said:
So what is matter ?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
Click to expand...
So what is ignorance, Bjarne?
27 June 2016 Bjarne: Cites a Scientific American article stating that virtual particles are real particles, i.e. matter :eek:!
Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?
Thus virtual particles are indeed real and have observable effects that physicists have devised ways of measuring. Their properties and consequences are well established and well understood consequences of quantum mechanics.
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
Honestly you have cited a lying, deluded crank again, Bjarne.
27 June 2016 Bjarne: Again cites a 29 second video "quote mined" from a longer video with stupid text and a lying description added by some deluded crank.

The lies are about the words of Michio Kaku in that 29 second clip. This is explained in what I wrote:
This is a well respected physicist Michio Kaku explaining physics that has been known for almost a century (and is learned by anyone who learns physics).
He is not stating that GR is wrong - just that it does not work at singularities.

The lies are in the description:

Black holes exist even without a singularity - all they need is a dense enough sphere.
The Big Bang theory starts with the universe in a hot dense state because we know that GR does not work at singularities,
There is no imaginary "new Gravity Wave theory".
There is the delusion and insult about astrophysicists.

The author is a deluded crank: "My Concave and Flat earth friends ..."
Click to expand...

Haleluja
 
Reality Check said:
A "flaw" that have been known for almost a century does not mean that GR does not work. We have extensive tests of GR that show that GR works, including the detection of gravitational waves :jaw-dropp!

.
Click to expand...

The fact that oxygen is one of the contend in the atmosphere, - doesn’t mean that this is why the sky is blue... also not that that oxygen is blue..
There must be a fundamental flaw with such postulate, we better find....

In the same way you can separate general theory of relativity, and insulate the part / aspect of this old theory, - that must be rotten.

This mean the separation must be done so that...
  • One part remian, - this part / aspect that is good
  • One part that is rotten and therefore must be cut off. .
I have done such separation allready. One day you will understand why it was necessary.

I did the same with SR...

I call these cut in SR and GR for; - Modified Theory of Relativity

I am 100% sure you haven’t read anything off it, - because you are one of these that have spent so long time at school, that no one anymore can reach you..


http://science27.com/paper.pdf

A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/maxplanck101765.html
 
Reality Check said:
That is a lie, Bjarne.
I know and stated that Michio Kaku is a well known and even respected scientist. You quoted me stating that :eek:!

It is the deluded crank you cited who lied about the physics that Michio Kaku spoke about in a 29 second video clip.
Click to expand...

Completely Rubbish, like always ....

RC you are from Africa right ?
Maybe you should learn more English, so that you can understand what Michio Kaku say

It is very clear - even a 7 year old school boy can easy understand what is being said, and also that the voice belong to Michio Kaku , and not a manipulating crank

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouXX2R8fq_0
 
Last edited:
EHocking said:
I'll just leave those two "sentences" there for you to think about. :id:
Click to expand...

You should't have written this. I made a trap to see if RC could figure out that "learn" was missing. This was to test his IQ and English skills
 
Last edited:
Bjarne said:
ThaMan 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.…
[...]
Click to expand...
Which is, if I have done my sums correctly, everyone. Right?

So, all I need is a single citizen on planet Earth who disagrees, to show that what you think is wrong. Have I got that right?

Personally, I think what you have written in this thread, Bjarne, is rather hard to understand, in a logical, consistent manner. That which appears to make logical, consistent sense is, I think, so inconsistent with well-established results from many decades of good experiments and observations (as many others have already pointed out, many times) that I'm quite puzzled why you continue posting here.

At the least, I'd've expected you to try to show that your ideas are consistent with all the relevant experimental and observational results. First.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom