ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Allais Effect , Dark Flow , relativity , Theory of Relativity

Closed Thread
Old 2nd February 2016, 04:11 PM   #81
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
 
jaydeehess's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,843
Originally Posted by Beady View Post
Hasn't anybody noticed he's pulling the old "If you can't prove me wrong, I'm right" trick? He stated his position, folks came up with reasons he's wrong, he challenges you to prove your objections are valid, and you - all fall for it. Or am I missing something?

Oh crap!
No, you pretty much nailed it.

He has t addressed the lack of a demonstrated advantage of EU over relativity. No experiments or observations. Instead its similar to a God-of-the-Gaps argument. Find a gap, or perceived gap, find a scientist raising questions, and he baldly proclaims EU is in that gap.
jaydeehess is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2016, 04:13 PM   #82
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
The theory of relativity is a holy cow, it is forbidden not to fall on you knees
That tends to be what most of the incompetent on this subject claim. Surely do hope you are not one of them.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2016, 04:15 PM   #83
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Unfortunately I have good reason to believe that you may well be. Would you mind posting actual credentials that can easily be verified on the internet. Also please post all your references.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2016, 04:20 PM   #84
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Unfortunately I have good reason to believe that you may well be. Would you mind posting actual credentials that can easily be verified on the internet. Also please post all your references.
Oops, I see you did- and I am seeing I was right. For what you are trying to do, by references I mean actual major Journals (peer reviewed widely accepted as very important in their fields and nothing out of China or Africa where you pay to be published).
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2016, 04:22 PM   #85
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Damn shame he is a member so we cannot treat him properly.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2016, 04:25 PM   #86
p0lka
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,691
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
  1. Gravitational waves are never detected and never will
  2. GR have for example always been inconsistence with quantum physics
  3. Black Holes are inconsistence with the fact that information of light cannot be lost, inconsistence with quantum physics and mathematical nonsense
  4. Even Stephen hawking cannot believe the prevailing religion anymore

http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-h...-holes-1.14583
Ok, do you have a competing model that fixes the theory of relativity?
If so, then publish and spread the truth to the world.

If not, then science will use the most currently accurate model that gives the most accurate results so far, that's how it rolls.

Last edited by p0lka; 2nd February 2016 at 04:27 PM.
p0lka is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2016, 04:29 PM   #87
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
I think it's a very nice theory and would like to hear more about it.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2016, 04:49 PM   #88
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I think it's a very nice theory and would like to hear more about it.
Here's a selection of more
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...archid=3345645
Bjarne has been away for nearly four years.
__________________
homeopathy homicidium
Daylightstar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2016, 04:52 PM   #89
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
[b][color="RoyalBlue"][size="5"]
Regardless of the inclination of the solar system in proportion to a (theoretical) anisotropic acceleration direction (in the following referred to as the Dark Flow Acceleration Direction (Fig3.), (in short DFAD)), it wouldn’t be possible to directly measure such a DFA even if we presume its strength to be somewhere around 100 µGal. It is somewhat similar to the situation that it is also impossible to measure the acceleration of Earth’s orbit acceleration from Earth (given that everything on Earth is part of the same acceleration frame of reference).
...
When the energy / force responsible for accelerating an object stops pushing an object forward, the object decelerates. This is a universal law of nature, so all orbits are affected. Note that this only applies for matter, not for massless particles.
Here are two hypotheses that have been proven wrong experimentally time and again. Therefore, every one of your conclusions that follows from them is invalid. This pretty much takes out your entire 'theory' as well as condescending non sequiturs.

That is clearly false according to BOTH Newtonian physics and Einsteins relativity. The proper acceleration is the acceleration caused by an external force on an observer. If you are talking about proper acceleration, the observers on the surface of the earth ARE not in the same accelerating frame of reference. So there are many experiments performed by observers on the earths surface that have measured the proper acceleration of the earths surface. Link to definition of proper acceleration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration
‘The total (mechanical) force which is calculated to induce the proper acceleration on a mass at rest in a coordinate system that has a proper acceleration, via Newton's law F = m a, is called the proper force. As seen above, the proper force is equal to the opposing reaction force that is measured as an object's "operational weight" (i.e., its weight as measured by a device like a spring scale, in vacuum, in the object's coordinate system). Thus, the proper force on an object is always equal and opposite to its measured weight.’

One can see that the proper acceleration as described in the above sentence is equally valid for the physics of Newton and the physics of Einstein.


The proper acceleration of the surface of the earth varies in both magnitude and directions. Observers on the same latitude experience proper accelerations that have the same magnitude but different directions. Observers on the same longitude experience accelerations that have the same direction but different magnitudes. Arbitrary observers on the earths surface experience the same proper acceleration but different direction.


The proper acceleration on the surface of the earth has been measured for the past century or so using a Foucault pendulum. The Foucault pendulum was introduced in 1851, about 54 years BEFORE Einstein’s 1905 article which introduced special relativity. The Foucault pendulum is an experiment that has been repeated many times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
‘The Foucault pendulum (English pronunciation: /fuːˈkoʊ/ foo-koh; French pronunciation:* [fuˈko]), or Foucault's pendulum, named after the French physicist Léon Foucault, is a simple device conceived as an experiment to demonstrate the rotation of the Earth. While it had long been known that the Earth rotates, the introduction of the Foucault pendulum in 1851 was the first simple proof of the rotation in an easy-to-see experiment. Today, Foucault pendulums are popular displays in science museums and universities.’

The proper acceleration of the earths surface has also been measured in the Michaelson-Gale-Pearson experiment that involved the Sagnac effect..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect
‘In 1926, an ambitious ring interferometry experiment was set up by Albert Michelson and Henry Gale. The aim was to find out whether the rotation of the Earth has an effect on the propagation of light in the vicinity of the Earth. The Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment was a very large ring interferometer, (a perimeter of 1.9 kilometer), large enough to detect the angular velocity of the Earth. The outcome of the experiment was that the angular velocity of the Earth as measured by astronomy was confirmed to within measuring accuracy. The ring interferometer of the Michelson-Gale experiment was not calibrated by comparison with an outside reference (which was not possible, because the setup was fixed to the Earth). From its design it could be deduced where the central interference fringe ought to be if there would be zero shift. The measured shift was 230 parts in 1000, with an accuracy of 5 parts in 1000. The predicted shift was 237 parts in 1000.’

I didn’t notice any numerical quantities in your theory. Just so we we have a quantitative idea of what the proper acceleration is for observers on earth, I have calculated different components of the proper acceleration using the centripetal acceleration formula. When rebutting what I just said, please refer to the following values for the magnitude of proper acceleration.

|a(Rotation on equator of earths surface)| = 0.0337 m s^-2
|a(Orbit around sun of earths center)| = 0.0059 m s^-2
|a(Orbit around center of Milky Way of sun)| = 2.05×10^-9 m s^-2

One should observe that the proper acceleration associated with the rotation of the earth’s surface is far larger than the other two. Therefore, it is this rotational component that is most easily measured by an observer on the earths surface.

1) Observers on earth have measured the rotational acceleration at the earths surface, 0.0337 m s^-2.

2) This component of proper acceleration has not decreased significantly in the 165 years since the Foucault pendulum was introduced.

3) Therefore, your theory has been falsified to the extent that ANY theory CAN be falsified

Last edited by Darwin123; 2nd February 2016 at 05:37 PM.
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2016, 05:25 PM   #90
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
1. The GPS System is not a Scientific test system

It's a successful application of the theory.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2016, 05:37 PM   #91
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
I corrected a mistake in another post. Therefore, the former message of this post is redundant. Please delete message.

Last edited by Darwin123; 2nd February 2016 at 05:39 PM.
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2016, 06:52 PM   #92
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,254
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
The best way to sell a lie is to wrap it into truth
True, but only if you are good at it. Try harder!
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2016, 06:55 PM   #93
Toke
Godless Socialist
 
Toke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Denmark
Posts: 8,171
I recall Bjarne hiring a physicist to measure gravity on the floors of a tall building here in Denmark. The resulting curve matched existing theories quite well. (allowing for one floor being taller than the others.)
And disproved his ideas of how gravity works.

I cannot make sense of the OP but assume it is just as far out.
__________________
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. -K. Marx.

Toke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2016, 07:22 PM   #94
RussDill
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Charleston
Posts: 5,426
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Rubbish, only loss of energy has been detected
I'm not sure here if you mean astronomical observations have detected energy loss. Yes, true. And yes, gravity wave detectors have not detected gravity waves yet. But with their given sensitivity, this is an expected result. Similar to how dark matter detectors have not detected dark matter.

Quote:
So what you say, huge conflicts in science doesn’t matter..
Hugh conflicts are what science would love to see. A conflict would be experimental data that is not predicted by the mathematics of relativity. You still haven't provided me that experimental data that does not match what is predicted by relativity. Heck, you haven't even provided me with any numbers at all.
__________________
The woods are lovely, dark and deep
but i have promises to keep
and lines to code before I sleep
And lines to code before I sleep
RussDill is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2016, 11:03 PM   #95
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by RussDill View Post
I'm not sure here if you mean astronomical observations have detected energy loss. Yes, true. And yes, gravity wave detectors have not detected gravity waves yet. But with their given sensitivity, this is an expected result. Similar to how dark matter detectors have not detected dark matter.



Hugh conflicts are what science would love to see. A conflict would be experimental data that is not predicted by the mathematics of relativity. You still haven't provided me that experimental data that does not match what is predicted by relativity. Heck, you haven't even provided me with any numbers at all.
And I am almost certain that A) that will never happen and B) if it does the flaw(s) in the math will rapidly be found.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2016, 11:44 PM   #96
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
It has been tested in many ways and experiment corresponds to theory. So any newly proposed theory would need to reduce to relativity in ordinary situations. Time really does slow when things go fast and closer to massive objects. This is a simple fact.
I don't deny that. read the theory
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2016, 11:46 PM   #97
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
Originally Posted by AdamSK View Post
Measure concentration of muons at a first altitude, measure velocity of muons (fraction of c), measure concentration of muons at a second altitude. Determine muon halflife at fraction of c velocity.

Trap muons. Determine muon halflife at low velocity.

Verify that difference is consistent with special relativity time dilation formula.

Does your model provide a different explanation?
Read the theory my freind and you would not have these conserns
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2016, 11:48 PM   #98
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
What was that you were saying about results that disagree with Einstinian physics being brushed under the carpet? It's a good thing you're not doing anything like that for your theory.

Dave
Nothing is sweept anywhere, and there are no longer any HUGE mystery , such as dark matter or dark energy. Furthermore dark flow is true
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 12:09 AM   #99
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
Originally Posted by Dancing David View Post
I do not understand your reference to 'absolute dark flow motion reference frame'.

1. How would that impact accelerators at different orientations?
If the LHC inclination was perpendicularly on the dark flow axis to the dark flow axis RR and RRPKE will cancel out instantly.
If LHC inclination was aligned with the dark flow axis , RR and RRPKE will also cancel out, but with delay be - which can be calculated speed difference/ LHC circumference. The speed difference when moving N/S = the dark flow speed that apply for Earth..- So you will have a tiny tiny little anomaly that will cancel out within 1/150000 second.. If the inclination is 45° , the speed difference is 50% and the Lorentz transformation factor much less.

Quote:
How does you theory explain the extended half life of muons in accelerators in different orientations?
You will have a tiny time dilation anomaly too, - but how can you know that the speed is constant, noth and south ?

Remember the problem is also that muons don’t carry an atomic clock.

Provide me the LHC speed and circumference and I will calculated it all for you..
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 12:14 AM   #100
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
Of course they matter. Their existence does not make your pet theory any more robust until you demonstrate it predicts events better than the present theories.

I note that Hawking makes no mention of EU explaining the issue of Black Hole firewall. How does his new paper bolster your ideas at all? Hawkings paper supports you just as much as a Pixie Dust theory.
My friend something is serious rotten.
  1. Gravitational waves are never detected directly, - they should.
  2. GR conflicts with Quantum mechanics.
  3. Also when it comes to back holes, - the theory conflicts with science itself.
  4. The inconstancy in science can’t be bigger and the ice not thinner.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 12:19 AM   #101
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,003
When you say "acceleration" in the OP, I think you mean "velocity". Or, perhaps, "movement".
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 12:25 AM   #102
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
Originally Posted by jaydeehess View Post
I take it you forgot to include a negative in that sentence.

GPS works.
GPS relies on predictions from Relativity.
How does EU explain that GPS does in fact work if based upon an erroneous theory?

GPS is routine work to keep you ion the track, it’s not a scientific test system. A lot impacts satellites and all such is just synchronized and even orbit adjusted so that the system works so good as possible.
Nobody ask whether this and this adjustment was 72% cause by perturbation, 13% due to space whether 7% due to gravitational anomalies etc..
Computers calculate the best option every day, and run the shows even without asking anyone. Furthermore if put 9 satellites in orbit and all confirms GR and SR, and you suddenly you have a significant anomaly with a polar satellite, - would you now think, OK the orbit is a little different (as it really is) or this is because the strong polar gravitational anomalies etc. – The last thing you would suspect is that something is wrong with SR, - and here you have it, - the navigator computer will figure out here I need to set the clock 4% different, and everybody is happy.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 12:29 AM   #103
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
Originally Posted by AdamSK View Post
Measure concentration of muons at a first altitude, measure velocity of muons (fraction of c), measure concentration of muons at a second altitude. Determine muon halflife at fraction of c velocity.

Trap muons. Determine muon halflife at low velocity.

Verify that difference is consistent with special relativity time dilation formula.

Does your model provide a different explanation?
Now figure out a experiment to test the new theory. But please read the theory first
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 12:33 AM   #104
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
Originally Posted by p0lka View Post
Ok, do you have a competing model that fixes the theory of relativity?
If so, then publish and spread the truth to the world.

If not, then science will use the most currently accurate model that gives the most accurate results so far, that's how it rolls.
Time will come,

My friend in the meantime think about how much brainwash damage 100 years massive propaganda have done to innocent students.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 12:38 AM   #105
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Time will come,

My friend in the meantime think about how much brainwash damage 100 years massive propaganda have done to innocent students.
I believe what you wish to call propaganda is what most of us call actual science. YMMV, but if it does, at this time and place, you are quite wrong.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 12:41 AM   #106
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
Originally Posted by Darwin123 View Post
Here are two hypotheses that have been proven wrong experimentally time and again. Therefore, every one of your conclusions that follows from them is invalid. This pretty much takes out your entire 'theory' as well as condescending non sequiturs.

That is clearly false according to BOTH Newtonian physics and Einsteins relativity. The proper acceleration is the acceleration caused by an external force on an observer. If you are talking about proper acceleration, the observers on the surface of the earth ARE not in the same accelerating frame of reference. So there are many experiments performed by observers on the earths surface that have measured the proper acceleration of the earths surface. Link to definition of proper acceleration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_acceleration
‘The total (mechanical) force which is calculated to induce the proper acceleration on a mass at rest in a coordinate system that has a proper acceleration, via Newton's law F = m a, is called the proper force. As seen above, the proper force is equal to the opposing reaction force that is measured as an object's "operational weight" (i.e., its weight as measured by a device like a spring scale, in vacuum, in the object's coordinate system). Thus, the proper force on an object is always equal and opposite to its measured weight.’

One can see that the proper acceleration as described in the above sentence is equally valid for the physics of Newton and the physics of Einstein.


The proper acceleration of the surface of the earth varies in both magnitude and directions. Observers on the same latitude experience proper accelerations that have the same magnitude but different directions. Observers on the same longitude experience accelerations that have the same direction but different magnitudes. Arbitrary observers on the earths surface experience the same proper acceleration but different direction.


The proper acceleration on the surface of the earth has been measured for the past century or so using a Foucault pendulum. The Foucault pendulum was introduced in 1851, about 54 years BEFORE Einstein’s 1905 article which introduced special relativity. The Foucault pendulum is an experiment that has been repeated many times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum
‘The Foucault pendulum (English pronunciation: /fuːˈkoʊ/ foo-koh; French pronunciation:* [fuˈko]), or Foucault's pendulum, named after the French physicist Léon Foucault, is a simple device conceived as an experiment to demonstrate the rotation of the Earth. While it had long been known that the Earth rotates, the introduction of the Foucault pendulum in 1851 was the first simple proof of the rotation in an easy-to-see experiment. Today, Foucault pendulums are popular displays in science museums and universities.’

The proper acceleration of the earths surface has also been measured in the Michaelson-Gale-Pearson experiment that involved the Sagnac effect..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect
‘In 1926, an ambitious ring interferometry experiment was set up by Albert Michelson and Henry Gale. The aim was to find out whether the rotation of the Earth has an effect on the propagation of light in the vicinity of the Earth. The Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment was a very large ring interferometer, (a perimeter of 1.9 kilometer), large enough to detect the angular velocity of the Earth. The outcome of the experiment was that the angular velocity of the Earth as measured by astronomy was confirmed to within measuring accuracy. The ring interferometer of the Michelson-Gale experiment was not calibrated by comparison with an outside reference (which was not possible, because the setup was fixed to the Earth). From its design it could be deduced where the central interference fringe ought to be if there would be zero shift. The measured shift was 230 parts in 1000, with an accuracy of 5 parts in 1000. The predicted shift was 237 parts in 1000.’

I didn’t notice any numerical quantities in your theory. Just so we we have a quantitative idea of what the proper acceleration is for observers on earth, I have calculated different components of the proper acceleration using the centripetal acceleration formula. When rebutting what I just said, please refer to the following values for the magnitude of proper acceleration.

|a(Rotation on equator of earths surface)| = 0.0337 m s^-2
|a(Orbit around sun of earths center)| = 0.0059 m s^-2
|a(Orbit around center of Milky Way of sun)| = 2.05×10^-9 m s^-2

One should observe that the proper acceleration associated with the rotation of the earth’s surface is far larger than the other two. Therefore, it is this rotational component that is most easily measured by an observer on the earths surface.

1) Observers on earth have measured the rotational acceleration at the earths surface, 0.0337 m s^-2.

2) This component of proper acceleration has not decreased significantly in the 165 years since the Foucault pendulum was introduced.

3) Therefore, your theory has been falsified to the extent that ANY theory CAN be falsified
The place you went wrong is that before an anisotropic accelerating can be measured, the test object must be exposed to the anisotropic force acceleration and not to the earth not. so simple is that.

Before continuing tell me when is such test object exposed?

Last edited by Bjarne; 3rd February 2016 at 12:42 AM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 12:46 AM   #107
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
I don't deny that. read the theory theory
Also. stringing words together is not making a theory. To be a theory, you must be able to show by clearly established methods that what you believe is proved by many observations under many different circumstances (lots of experiments and observations) and/or, where more applicable by demonstrated, physically testable mathematics. Here you are failing completely at both. (For the future, please remember that Theory in science does not mean at all what theory means if you are the police. The first is proven, the second is a guess. Science is not a guess except when you are trying to decide how to design an experiment.)
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 12:48 AM   #108
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
Originally Posted by Toke View Post
I recall Bjarne hiring a physicist to measure gravity on the floors of a tall building here in Denmark. The resulting curve matched existing theories quite well. (allowing for one floor being taller than the others.)
And disproved his ideas of how gravity works.

I cannot make sense of the OP but assume it is just as far out.
Yes once I thought the theory of relativity was true (stupid me) and therefore something magic happen in the center of a gravitational field.

See this video and u2 will understand.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mQhZB5lmvk

But as you can see in the video, - Just nonsense, stupid , stupid me... I too was a victim for systematical brainwash

Soon when humanity will look back at the scientific history, - many will call the entire human race, naive - because they was so stupid they thought dark matter really was matter, - and Einstein infallible… Ohhh it is so human to make mistakes..

Last edited by Bjarne; 3rd February 2016 at 01:01 AM.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 12:52 AM   #109
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
I rate it 0.4 TimeCubes. Needs more color and sense of persecution for an additional 0.2; adding some form of nonstandard religious approach is worth another 0.1 TimeCubes. But good work so far. Keep it up.
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 01:12 AM   #110
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Also. stringing words together is not making a theory. To be a theory, you must be able to show by clearly established methods that what you believe is proved by many observations under many different circumstances (lots of experiments and observations) and/or, where more applicable by demonstrated, physically testable mathematics. Here you are failing completely at both. (For the future, please remember that Theory in science does not mean at all what theory means if you are the police. The first is proven, the second is a guess. Science is not a guess except when you are trying to decide how to design an experiment.)

Keep it cool fellow.
First SR test at ISS and Galileo 5 & 6 will reveal something is serious rotten.
I hope this will be a wakeup call, and that the scientific community then will realize it is necessary to send few small and relative cheap space probes out to test whether NASA really has swept a major hint to new science under the carpet.
When this is done the avalanche is rolling, the result will be completely devastating to the prevailing paradigm.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 01:30 AM   #111
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
 
dasmiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Well past Hither, looking for Yon
Posts: 6,237
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
GPS is routine work to keep you ion the track, it’s not a scientific test system. A lot impacts satellites and all such is just synchronized and even orbit adjusted so that the system works so good as possible.
Nobody ask whether this and this adjustment was 72% cause by perturbation, 13% due to space whether 7% due to gravitational anomalies etc..
No. This is simply wrong. Many very smart people have devoted their careers to understanding all the factors that affect the GPS spacecraft orbits and clocks.

Quote:
Computers calculate the best option every day, and run the shows even without asking anyone.
There are a lot of people involved with the GPS ground stations and nav message uploads. It is simply wrong to say that all this happens "without even asking anyone."

Quote:
Furthermore if put 9 satellites in orbit and all confirms GR and SR, and you suddenly you have a significant anomaly with a polar satellite,
There are no polar GPS satellites. They're all at the same inclination (more or less).

Quote:
[ - would you now think, OK the orbit is a little different (as it really is) or this is because the strong polar gravitational anomalies etc. – The last thing you would suspect is that something is wrong with SR, - and here you have it, - the navigator computer will figure out here I need to set the clock 4% different, and everybody is happy.
Again, that's not at all how it works.
__________________
"In times of war, we need warriors. But this isn't a war." - Phil Plaitt
dasmiller is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 01:42 AM   #112
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
Originally Posted by dasmiller View Post
No. This is simply wrong. Many very smart people have devoted their careers to understanding all the factors that affect the GPS spacecraft orbits and clocks.

There are a lot of people involved with the GPS ground stations and nav message uploads. It is simply wrong to say that all this happens "without even asking anyone."

There are no polar GPS satellites. They're all at the same inclination (more or less).

Again, that's not at all how it works.
So long GPS not is a scientific test system, the scientific aspect does not have primary priority. Exactly like Chernobyl also had a different primary purpose.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 01:53 AM   #113
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Keep it cool fellow.
First SR test at ISS and Galileo 5 & 6 will reveal something is serious rotten.
I hope this will be a wakeup call, and that the scientific community then will realize it is necessary to send few small and relative cheap space probes out to test whether NASA really has swept a major hint to new science under the carpet.
When this is done the avalanche is rolling, the result will be completely devastating to the prevailing paradigm.
When it doesn't, I presume you'll come here and claim it's cover-up and a conspiracy?
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 02:06 AM   #114
GlennB
Loggerheaded, earth-vexing fustilarian
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arcadia, Greece
Posts: 25,543
Any serious scientist would be a pig in mud if they found solid reasons to doubt GR. The idea that it's somehow 'worshipped' or protected by a comspiracy misunderstands the contrary nature of most scientists. There's a Nobel prize in there, to say the least.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 02:19 AM   #115
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,003
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Keep it cool fellow.
First SR test at ISS and Galileo 5 & 6 will reveal something is serious rotten.
I hope this will be a wakeup call, and that the scientific community then will realize it is necessary to send few small and relative cheap space probes out to test whether NASA really has swept a major hint to new science under the carpet.
When this is done the avalanche is rolling, the result will be completely devastating to the prevailing paradigm.
If it's a conspiracy by NASA then a) why are they testing special relativity when they already know that it's not true, and b) why would they then let other people see the real results? I don't think you've thought this through.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 02:21 AM   #116
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,003
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Any serious scientist would be a pig in mud if they found solid reasons to doubt GR. The idea that it's somehow 'worshipped' or protected by a comspiracy misunderstands the contrary nature of most scientists. There's a Nobel prize in there, to say the least.
See, for example, the excitement of the scientists at CERN when a loose wire made them think that they'd created particles which travelled faster than the speed of light.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 03:04 AM   #117
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
If it's a conspiracy by NASA then a) why are they testing special relativity when they already know that it's not true, and b) why would they then let other people see the real results? I don't think you've thought this through.
conspiracy ? who said that `?
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 03:49 AM   #118
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,003
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
conspiracy ? who said that `?
If it's not a conspiracy then are you asserting that NASA has been covering it up without knowing that they've been covering it up?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 06:16 AM   #119
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
If it's not a conspiracy then are you asserting that NASA has been covering it up without knowing that they've been covering it up?

I am not sure you understand how much common sence damage 100 years massive provaganda can do.
Bjarne is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2016, 06:26 AM   #120
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,003
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
I am not sure you understand how much common sence damage 100 years massive provaganda can do.
Common sense is one thing. I thought you were talking about science.

And now you're saying that it's propaganda. Which, again, means conspiracy. So it's a conspiracy that NASA have been misled by, rather than one they are misleading people with?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:05 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.