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

Status
Not open for further replies.

halleyscomet

Penultimate Amazing
halleyscomet
Joined
Dec 7, 2012
Messages
10,259
abaddon said:
There is one key difference though. Nancy has followers.
Click to expand...

I think it more likely the Mills thread will produce proof of Hydrinos before Bjarn recruits a single follower.

This is a continuation thread. It's totally fair to quote from the previous thread to here, it's just that the old thread was getting to large. Enjoy.
Posted By: kmortis
 
Last edited by a moderator:
An explanation of the difference between rotation and orbit gets a redacted reply rather than a thank you!

My post in reply to an ignorant assertion that the Moon does not rotate:
Even English as a second language cannot excuse this very ignorant statement. But just in case:

Bjarne: Rotating means spinning on an interior axis. If you turn 360 degrees, you are rotating. The Earth rotates to produce day and night.
This is not the same as orbit which is an object being in a path around a central, external axis. If you go on a carousel, you are on an orbit around the center of the carousel. Earth obits around the Sun and so we have years.

The Moon is tidally locked. The Moon presents one face to the Earth. To do that the Moon has to rotate so that face is always toward the Earth. The Moon rotates 360 degrees in each orbit.

The Tidal locking Wikipedia article has a nice graphic showing that the Moon has to rotate to show only one face to the Earth.
Click to expand...
 
Can't be bothered to read the previous thread.

It's more than halfway through 2018.

Can someone give me a TL;DR for whatever was supposed to happen in 2016?
 
rustypouch said:
Can someone give me a TL;DR for whatever was supposed to happen in 2016?
Click to expand...
There were an pair of atomic clocks that were supposed to be installed on the International Space Station in 2016. That has slipped to this year. Data should be available maybe in 2020.

Bjarne has ignorant fantasies about what that data will show.
Start with the still debated dark flow (a possible flow of galaxy clusters million of light years away toward a part of the sky).
Add a delusion that whatever force caused that flow still exists and can affect the atomic clocks on the ISS.
Guess that this will be significant enough to be measured as changes in the clock data as the ISS orbits.
A delusion that this means the theory of relativity is wrong.

The last point has not been emphasized yet. Say dark flow was caused by a mass outside the observable universe that caused measured changes to the ISS clocks. This would be evidence for that mass. It is not evidence that relativity is wrong. Evidence for theory A is not evidence against theory B unless it can be shown that they are the only 2 theories possible (logical fallacy of false dichotomy).

Another example: The ISS orbits and goes between day and night. Let the change in outgassing from the ISS cause accelerations big enough to change the clock data. It would be stupid to conclude that this makes relativity fall apart.
 
Reality Check said:
There were an pair of atomic clocks that were supposed to be installed on the International Space Station in 2016. That has slipped to this year. Data should be available maybe in 2020.

Bjarne has ignorant fantasies about what that data will show.
Start with the still debated dark flow (a possible flow of galaxy clusters million of light years away toward a part of the sky).
Add a delusion that whatever force caused that flow still exists and can affect the atomic clocks on the ISS.
Guess that this will be significant enough to be measured as changes in the clock data as the ISS orbits.
A delusion that this means the theory of relativity is wrong.

The last point has not been emphasized yet. Say dark flow was caused by a mass outside the observable universe that caused measured changes to the ISS clocks. This would be evidence for that mass. It is not evidence that relativity is wrong. Evidence for theory A is not evidence against theory B unless it can be shown that they are the only 2 theories possible (logical fallacy of false dichotomy).

Another example: The ISS orbits and goes between day and night. Let the change in outgassing from the ISS cause accelerations big enough to change the clock data. It would be stupid to conclude that this makes relativity fall apart.
Click to expand...

Thanks!
 
There are two problems with general relativity which have been plugged by inventing dark matter and dark energy.

None of the candidates for dark matter has been found, and CERN has found no new particles which would support that theory. There are also major problems with the modified gravity theories which try to explain the discrepancies. Refer to this month's SciAm.

No one knows what dark energy is, except a plug to explain the increasing rate of the observed expansion of the universe. Maybe we need a new cosmological constant.

So the theory is not falling apart but it doesn't explain all the data.
 
I expect that the 'Theory of Relativity Will Fall Apart' at just about the same time that Trump will 'Make America Great Again'.

My faith in the one outcome is approximately equal to my faith in the other outcome.
 
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity Passes Yet Another Test
Einstein's theory says the fabric of the universe is not simply space, but a more complex entity called space-time, which is warped by the presence of heavy objects.

NEW YORK (AP) — More than a century after Albert Einstein proposed it, his theory of general relativity has passed another test.

With giant telescopes pointed at the center of our galaxy, a team of European researchers observed a fast-moving star that got close to a monstrous black hole. They saw that the black hole distorted the light waves from the star in a way that agrees with Einstein’s theory.

The result was reported Thursday in the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics.
Click to expand...
 
Crossbow said:
I expect that the 'Theory of Relativity Will Fall Apart' at just about the same time that Trump will 'Make America Great Again'.

My faith in the one outcome is approximately equal to my faith in the other outcome.
Click to expand...
Problem here is that for a given hypothesis, does it succeed or fail?

The given hypothesis has dismally failed. Everyone can see that. The TOR has not fallen apart in 2016/2017. Bjarne, on the other hand, is busily trying to rehabilitate his failed notions. The only reason this thread continues is because Bjarne cannot drop his religious belief (because it is nothing other than that). Thus we see that Bjarne has kicked the can down the road to 2019. In 2019, this same discussion will repeat. Bjarne's idea will fail again and Bjarne will simply kick the can down the road again.

As simple as it is, if a "prophet" makes a prediction and said prediction turns out to be false, you have a false prophet on your hands. If said prophet makes more than one failed prediction, that is something else.
 
Diablo said:
There are two problems with general relativity which have been plugged by inventing dark matter and dark energy. ...
Click to expand...
This is not correct, Diablo.
The evidence for dark matter is from Newtonian mechanics and from GR (e.g. in cosmological models). Dark matter is detected using GR. Dark matter is a not a problem for GR.

The evidence for dark energy is from astrophysics measuring the expansion of the universe. This is not a problem with GR. A positive cosmological constant as an explanation for dark energy has always been in GR.

None of the candidates for dark matter need to be found! If dark matter is particles that we cannot detect currently (or ever) then of course we will not detect them.

Null experiments (not finding stuff) is good. It means that we can concentrate on looking for other candidates.

We know that there are major problems with non-relativistic and relativistic MOND. That is a minor reason why the preferred solution is particles. The major reason is that the large amount of evidence for dark matter includes evidence that it is particles - dark matter "gas" separating from normal matter gas in colliding galaxies + modeling the CMB tells us that there is non-baryonic matter matching the amount of dark matter.

We do not need a "new" cosmological constant (see above).
 
Diablo said:
There are two problems with general relativity which have been plugged by inventing dark matter and dark energy.
Click to expand...
Right

None of the candidates for dark matter has been found, and CERN has found no new particles which would support that theory. There are also major problems with the modified gravity theories which try to explain the discrepancies. Refer to this month's SciAm.
Click to expand...
Right

No one knows what dark energy is,
Click to expand...
Wrong. I know, but right (almost) nobody don't know or understand what it is.
The new Modified Theory of Relativity has solved what Dark Energy really is.
The nature of space is elastic, - and matter is absorbing that elastic property of space. Dark energy is release of that elastic"substance".

Matter, gravity, energy - are different expressions for a certain tension of space at a given place and time. The tension of space is responsible for the Lorentz transformation.
Tension / transformation includes the tension of 1 second (a short of long second) - as well the tension of the ruler (the reality we see).
This process is always a proportional process, - which mean everything (time and local reality is expanding or shrinking proportional to each other) - that transformation process is simply the crankshaft in the new MTR theory.

except a plug to explain the increasing rate of the observed expansion of the universe.
Click to expand...
Such plug and play is only invented to cheat brainwashed fools, - getting them to waste their time, and sometimes wasting their entire live, - with total nonsense.
Its done to cover up how stupid "we" really are.
We have even seen how the scientific community accepted that new knowledge that could have been a door opener, - was swept under the carpet ( The Pioneer Anomaly)
Amazing that only few was protesting, - but really not so strange because those that will not "pray to the same mainstream god", must be very strange.
Real scientist are trying to understand the plenty and growing amount of evidence, - we already have and continues to get - all pointing to a completely new coherent paradigm.

Maybe we need a new cosmological constant.
Click to expand...
No, only to understand the common cause of hundred of "mysteries"

So the theory is not falling apart but it doesn't explain all the data.
Click to expand...
The new theory of relativity is based on understanding the true cause of the Lorentz Transformation.
We are now on the threshold to be forced to understand that true relativity is about a energy-space-tension-process.

ISS time dilation will be one more gigantic "hint" telling us that we are totally lost.
DFA another HUGE wake up call.
Add to that plenty of evidence all showing that something is terrible wrong.

All we have to do is now starting to put this bricks / puzzle correct together.
This is a job where even kindergartens can contribute, really not so demanding.
Kindergarten student have the advantage that in contrast to the massive brainwash that is going on the last 100 years, - causing irreparable brain-damages world wide each day - kindergarten student are (still) free to use their own brain. .
So from these unspoiled students we will only hear innocent crystal clear truths.
 
Last edited:
Ignorant agreement with an obviously wrong statement about GR

Bjarne said:
Right
Click to expand...
31 July 2018 Bjarne: Ignorant agreement with an obviously wrong statement about GR.
Dark matter is not part of GR. Dark energy has an explanation within GR.
These are not problems with GR.
 
Repeats a lie that he can explain anything with delusions about elastic space

Bjarne said:
Wrong. I know, but right (almost) nobody don't know or understand what it is.....
Click to expand...
31 July 2018 Bjarne: Repeats a lie that he can explain anything with delusions about elastic space.
Deluded, meaningless statements do not explain anything. Replace "elastic space" with "pixy dust" and he makes as much sense :eye-poppi!
 
A insane "brainwashed fools" insulting rant

Bjarne;12379163Such plug and play is only invented to cheat brainwashed fools said:
31 July 2018 Bjarne: A insane "brainwashed fools" insulting rant.
This is insane because he insults genius's like Stephen Hawking and physics students who learn about cosmology.
This is insane because the increasing rate of the observed expansion of the universe (dark energy) is what he says he can explain!
Click to expand...
 
At what point does continuing to engage with an obviously delusional person become abusive of said person?
 
MRC_Hans said:
A couple of Galileo Satellites initially in a faulty orbit have proven an opportunity to make the most accurate test of relativity to date:

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/N...n_s_Relativity_Theory_to_highest_accuracy_yet

Wonder if Bjarne has comments.

Hans
Click to expand...

You'd have thought that the effects measured by the very first GPS satellite would have caused any doubters to stop doubting. To cut a long story short, there were people who still doubted that these corrections would be needed for GR and SR. So a synthesiser was included that could change the frequency of the clock, should it prove necessary. After 20 or so days of not using it, it became apparent that they needed to use it. The predictions of the necessary correction were correct to 3 parts in a trillion (1012).
One hell of a coincidence? Or GR and SR are real effects? I know what my money is on.

http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm
 
According to his user profile Bjarne last visited the forum yesterday, a couple of hours before this thread was bumped.
 
Pixel42 said:
According to his user profile Bjarne last visited the forum yesterday, a couple of hours before this thread was bumped.
Click to expand...



The question becomes, will he ignore this thread, concede he was wrong, or come up with another poorly conceived excuse to explain why this additional proof of general relativity is somehow not quite right?
 
Reality Check said:
This is not correct, Diablo.
The evidence for dark matter is from Newtonian mechanics and from GR (e.g. in cosmological models). Dark matter is detected using GR. Dark matter is a not a problem for GR.

The evidence for dark energy is from astrophysics measuring the expansion of the universe. This is not a problem with GR. A positive cosmological constant as an explanation for dark energy has always been in GR.

None of the candidates for dark matter need to be found! If dark matter is particles that we cannot detect currently (or ever) then of course we will not detect them.

Null experiments (not finding stuff) is good. It means that we can concentrate on looking for other candidates.

We know that there are major problems with non-relativistic and relativistic MOND. That is a minor reason why the preferred solution is particles. The major reason is that the large amount of evidence for dark matter includes evidence that it is particles - dark matter "gas" separating from normal matter gas in colliding galaxies + modeling the CMB tells us that there is non-baryonic matter matching the amount of dark matter.

We do not need a "new" cosmological constant (see above).
Click to expand...

Thanks for partially quoting me.

DM is a problem because we can't say what it is. Once we find that out we can say this explanation works.

Not the cosmological constant again! The first one, which stopped the universe expanding, ended up at the bottom of the parrot's cage, so saying that a CC explains everything is nonsense. It's just a plug to make it work. All we have is that GR does not fit with the data.
 
steenkh said:
Interesting, thanks.

What happened to Bjarne? Did he just lose interest because his religious views on science were too difficult to defend? Or sheer exhaustion?

It does not look to me that he was banned.
Click to expand...
Likely rounding up his unicorn to make another charge.
 
halleyscomet said:
The question becomes, will he ignore this thread, concede he was wrong, or come up with another poorly conceived excuse to explain why this additional proof of general relativity is somehow not quite right?
Click to expand...

Based on experience, the latter.

Hans
 
Say ...

Did anyone happen to notice if the Theory of Relativity fall apart in the year 2018?

As for me, I was too busy chasing girls and flying racing planes to have noticed such a mundane event.

;)
 
I think, with Bjarne's usual MO in mind, that he will not return to this thread, but he will eventually start another one, with some new, but equally lame claims.

Some of them never learn.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
A couple of Galileo Satellites initially in a faulty orbit have proven an opportunity to make the most accurate test of relativity to date:

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/N...n_s_Relativity_Theory_to_highest_accuracy_yet

Wonder if Bjarne has comments.

Hans
Click to expand...

Sorry for the late reply, - I first read this today

The GR influence is confirmed to be true, and mention to a sinus curve +/- 370 ns.
No one have ever disputed the GR influence, also not me.

The SR influence is much less, as you can read in the MTR paper, - its only active a short period each orbit and predicted to be + 8.9e-12 instead of -3.57e-11 predicted by SR.

So we are speaking about a hitten anomaly in the data at the magnitude +0,0089 ns instead of -0,0357 ns

From the article
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/N...n_s_Relativity_Theory_to_highest_accuracy_yet
you can also read:

“While every Galileo satellite carries two rubidium and two hydrogen maser clocks, only one of them is the active transmission clock. During our period of observation, we focus then on the periods of time when the satellites were transmitting with PHM clocks and assess the quality of these precious data very carefully. Ongoing improvements in the processing and in particular in the modelling of the clocks, might lead to tightened results in the future.”

So it’s still hope, they can get it precise enough to discover that the SR values deviate from what is expected.
 
Happy new year, Bjarne. Your prediction is now two years overdue, and further away than ever.

You might start considering the possibility that you are simply .... wrong.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Happy new year, Bjarne. Your prediction is now two years overdue, and further away than ever.

You might start considering the possibility that you are simply .... wrong.

Hans
Click to expand...

Well, if you were being uncharitable, you'd say three.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom