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 8th February 2016, 05:50 AM   #281
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,471
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Oh, hi Bjarne! Didn't notice you were back. Still the same old chatter, ehh?

I notice one thing: Several times, people have pointed out various obvious errors in your formulas or calculations. You often acknowledge them (Not too bad! Not par for ... alternative physicists), and you say something like "ahh yes, I will come back with corrections".

But, you have done this MANY times. What does that say about the whole of your work? Let me use an analogy you will understand:

You leave your car with a mechanic, and when you get it back and drive from the workshop, you notice it overheats. So you look under the hood and find that he has installed some cooling pipes wrong. When you go back and point this out to him, he just says: "Ahh yes, that was a mistake. Come back in half an hour, and I'll have it fixed!"

Would you EVER trust that mechanic again?

How do you expect your scientific musings to be taken seriously when you are always caught making silly errors? Why should anybody think you have any idea what you are doing?

Hans

Hi old fellow, god to hear you still alive

All kind of factories make such kind of errors, again and again, I still I buy Toyota.

Or let’s be concrete.

During 50 years we heard that before Big Bang there was NOTHING.
Now new ESA / WMAP suggest that it must have been “something” before Big Bang..– see the EAS video link is below. – Ask you self WHAT COULD THAT SOMETHING BE ?

And apropos the newest ESA / WMAP, not only support that before the big bang there must had been “something”, - but ALSO supports that an anisotropic motion direction could exist.
Read the Danish article that claims the universes seems to have a preferred motion direction; this as well is based on the latest WMAP
http://videnskab.dk/miljo-naturviden...#comment-44389

Such prepared direction of motion is also supported by a NASA team as well (dark flow).
The art of Science is about how we can put many bricks together, in a way that eliminates so many unsolved mysteries as possibly, and in a way that forms a synthetic, off course as well in a way that can be proven.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eavab9siYg

We both know that the theory I was working with for years, not is something anyone would understand or invent in a weekend. It begins with a main thread that you have to stick to see where it leads you to.
The keywords were for 7 years ago; - if the cause of gravity is matters involvement in an elastic property of space, how would the universe would then looks like ?

Now add to that that it seems that dark flow could be true, - well then there is also acceleration connected to that. Could that be true? – Could the Allais effect be the evidence we need? – And is the fly by anomalies caused but the exact same force?
This is question and many many more automatically follows. Not something I need to invent.

My mission was to try to answer these questions.
I have discussed all this to test whether a lot of conclusion could be right or wrong. Don’t expect I am born to know all the answers. I am a poorly educated person, but with a will of steel.
Following the main thread, you is forced to get answers to hundreds of questions.

For example
  • Is the deformation of space correct. – YES,
  • Is gravity still a force YES
  • Is the curvature of sapce the cause of gravity NO
  • Are objects following the curvature of space YES
  • Is the ruler (and everything else) always extending or contracting proportional with time YES
  • Many more are the theoretical questions to ask, and answer..

One of the confused difficulties was whether a speed depending braking force could result in either deceleration or “negative speed” - or both..
I first really fully understood this this week. I am not educated mathematician, - I have to learn it all myself.

Exactly as understanding happens stepwise we will prove this stepwise.
The first step are these years, - it is now natural to concrete and specific predict that 2016 and 2017, both ISS and Galileo 5 and 6 will reveal significant time dilation deviations SR cannot account for, - but only for objects moving more or less at the dark flow axis.

Step 2 is that we will be forced to understand the nature of Relativistic Resistances, because within 2 – 3 years we will understand that RR was the basic element of the new theory that perfected the brake down of SR.

Step 3 If RR is true, and since we soon will know that dark flow is true too, many will begin to ask whether a significant anisotropic acceleration really is connected to dark flow, (DFA) also is true.
The way to test this is large solar system orbits, - space proves much be inclined so close to the dark flow axis as possible. – The keywords is DFA must be exposed relative to the acceleration frame of the Earth. For such test large orbits is perfect.

Step 4 So soon such test is done and all was as predicted, we will be force to understand what is then causing lens effect, now when dark matter doesn’t exist.. To understand this we have to understand what dark energy really is. – And now we are back where it all begun, - what was this “something” that existed before big bang and why did it explode?

Now I am 50 years ahead our time, - the answer in short - big crunch is the cause of big bang.
But Big bang is not a central explosion, but plenty local explosion of whole galaxies, - and exactly this is what releases gravity caused tension of space, because in a big bang the force of gravity is outplayed due to the loss of the strong force. The loss of gravity means that space stretching towards matter, will released. It can happen for the whole universe “at the same time” - - but before such release of gravity caused tension can reach us, it can take billions of years, all deepening on how big the universe is.

Dark energy is release of space tension. Gravity lensing only shows us that the tension was different before.
It’s a puzzle,- sometimes a brick can be pout wrong my friend, but we will all discover where the bricks have to be placed, - sooner or later.’

Last edited by Bjarne; 8th February 2016 at 06:00 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 8th February 2016, 06:29 AM   #282
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,153
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
Fair enough, but our fella didn't have a frame of reference, and his - was attached to the speed element of his "velocity", not to any directional element.
Well, that's the thing the + and - are the directional elements (for a given axis) so when attached to a speed element it becomes a velocity (speed with direction). The problem comes if he always considers the change in velocity to be negative which as you note just means he isn't maintaining a consistent (if any) frame of reference.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 8th February 2016, 06:35 AM   #283
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,153
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
And so are the expressions, - negative speed, - as well as relativistic resistance, dark flow acceleration, anisotropic acceleration, (etc) also even though it take time to understand that this is the cause of a lot we can measure.

Oops, before you said "negative velocity" while here you say "negative speed" . The former is correct (for a given coordinate system) while the latter is not.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 8th February 2016, 07:18 AM   #284
DuvalHMFIC
Graduate Poster
 
DuvalHMFIC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 1,347
I've never understood the "relativity is wrong" crowd. Newton wasn't wrong, either. All of Einstein's equations become Newton's when you aren't moving at high velocities. Einstein added onto Newtonian physics (well, really Hamiltonian). It's an additive process. It's been quite awhile since something in physics was out-and-out WRONG. You want to ADD to relativity? Please do, Einstein himself said it isn't complete.
__________________
Ben is sick ladies and gentlemen, thats right, Ben is sick.
DuvalHMFIC 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 8th February 2016, 08:25 AM   #285
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,848
Originally Posted by RussDill View Post
So, with the immense amount of energy released in the merger and ringdown, could you time reverse the process? If you could somehow emit and focus immensely powerful gravity waves towards a black hole, could you break it in two?
No. No surface of constant time intersects the event horizon.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 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 8th February 2016, 08:42 AM   #286
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,019
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
And so are the expressions, - negative speed, - as well as relativistic resistance, dark flow acceleration, anisotropic acceleration, (etc) also even though it take time to understand that this is the cause of a lot we can measure.
What effect are you accounting for that isn't adequately explained by current scientific theories?
__________________
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 8th February 2016, 08:49 AM   #287
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Well, that's the thing the + and - are the directional elements (for a given axis)......
But he didn't even have a given axis. He had nothing, other than a claim of negative velocity.

I would also suggest that there is a difference between a minus sign, in this context, and writing out the word negative. It takes rather a leap, in my view, to consider the word negative to mean a direction, particularly as it preceded velocity, and especially as there was no frame of reference in the conversation at all. Never mind the nonsense that followed it, just reading "negative velocity" is enough to know that this is an incorrect useage of the word velocity, with a very different meaning from a phrase like "with a velocity of minus 200kph" or whatever. Add that to the OP's explanation, in which he made it very clear that he was talking about a speed difference, and I think we have to move from a general terms discussion of velocity into a specific understanding of the innumeracy of the claim he made.
__________________
"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 8th February 2016, 08:55 AM   #288
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
Oops, before you said "negative velocity" while here you say "negative speed" . The former is correct (for a given coordinate system) while the latter is not.
A little history note: The English translation of Einstein's 1905 article refers to the 'velocity of light', not the 'speed of light'. At least it was in the translation that I read. In context of Maxwell's equations, AE meant 'speed of light'.

This probably was not the translators fault. It has been pointed out to me that words equivalent to 'velocity' and 'speed' are used in German. So it was probably Einstein that made the mistake.

Also the reviewers should have caught it. Perhaps they should have said, 'This was a ground breaking study, Dr. Einstein, but could you PLEASE correct your grammar'? This is 1905. We know the difference between velocity and speed. So remember to use common formalisms in the future!'

Scientists don't always use their jargon consistently. Scientists slip in language, just like other people. Sometimes, the words 'speed' and 'velocity' are used interchangeably even by seasoned scientists. In a review or a public presentation, it is common to sometimes ignore the formal conventions of the language.

There is also some intrinsic ambiguity in the use of the words. Velocity is always has to have a direction in addition to a magnitude. However, a vector can be designated in more than one way. In a one dimensional configuration, as considering the Sagnac effect or the trip around the world, the velocity can be designated by a sign (+ or -) rather than an arrow. However, the sign designates only a component of the physical vector.

So since in a 1D scenario we are hiding the other two spatial components, a scientist may sometimes use the word speed instead of velocity. To call it a velocity would unbury the other two coordinates. So sometimes people also get mixed up when reading descriptions of certain experiments to validate relativity.

It is important to realize that the speed of the body is really a velocity in the Hefele&Keating experiment. The speed of the airplane does not vary in time. The plane moves at a speed of about 500 miles per hour over the entire trip. However, the velocity of the airplane changes radically all the time. When halfway around the world, the plane has reversed the original direction. The plane does this gradually through the entire trip. The change in velocity is caused by a centripetal force which makes it a 'proper acceleration'.

So the proper acceleration is 'obviously' not negligible in the Hefele-Keating experiment. HKE is analogous to the 'twin paradox' except that the acceleration is distributed. The hypothetical twin paradox requires an infinite force acting over an infinitesimal amount of time. The 'impulse' is constant, however. So what trips people up in the 'twin paradox' is often the use of infinitesimals, not relativity.

Which doesn't make the dimensional analysis any less necessary.


The jargon changes. When I went to college (1974?), the professor always insisted that we keep the words 'velocity' and 'speed' separate. Actually, more than one professor said that. However, there may not have been
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 8th February 2016, 09:56 AM   #289
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,153
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
But he didn't even have a given axis. He had nothing, other than a claim of negative velocity.

I would also suggest that there is a difference between a minus sign, in this context, and writing out the word negative. It takes rather a leap, in my view, to consider the word negative to mean a direction, particularly as it preceded velocity, and especially as there was no frame of reference in the conversation at all. Never mind the nonsense that followed it, just reading "negative velocity" is enough to know that this is an incorrect useage of the word velocity, with a very different meaning from a phrase like "with a velocity of minus 200kph" or whatever. Add that to the OP's explanation, in which he made it very clear that he was talking about a speed difference, and I think we have to move from a general terms discussion of velocity into a specific understanding of the innumeracy of the claim he made.
Yep, while the terminology may have been technically correct the application certainly doesn't appear to be.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 8th February 2016, 10:04 AM   #290
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,153
Originally Posted by Darwin123 View Post
A little history note: The English translation of Einstein's 1905 article refers to the 'velocity of light', not the 'speed of light'. At least it was in the translation that I read. In context of Maxwell's equations, AE meant 'speed of light'.

This probably was not the translators fault. It has been pointed out to me that words equivalent to 'velocity' and 'speed' are used in German. So it was probably Einstein that made the mistake.

Also the reviewers should have caught it. Perhaps they should have said, 'This was a ground breaking study, Dr. Einstein, but could you PLEASE correct your grammar'? This is 1905. We know the difference between velocity and speed. So remember to use common formalisms in the future!'

Scientists don't always use their jargon consistently. Scientists slip in language, just like other people. Sometimes, the words 'speed' and 'velocity' are used interchangeably even by seasoned scientists. In a review or a public presentation, it is common to sometimes ignore the formal conventions of the language.

There is also some intrinsic ambiguity in the use of the words. Velocity is always has to have a direction in addition to a magnitude. However, a vector can be designated in more than one way. In a one dimensional configuration, as considering the Sagnac effect or the trip around the world, the velocity can be designated by a sign (+ or -) rather than an arrow. However, the sign designates only a component of the physical vector.

So since in a 1D scenario we are hiding the other two spatial components, a scientist may sometimes use the word speed instead of velocity. To call it a velocity would unbury the other two coordinates. So sometimes people also get mixed up when reading descriptions of certain experiments to validate relativity.

It is important to realize that the speed of the body is really a velocity in the Hefele&Keating experiment. The speed of the airplane does not vary in time. The plane moves at a speed of about 500 miles per hour over the entire trip. However, the velocity of the airplane changes radically all the time. When halfway around the world, the plane has reversed the original direction. The plane does this gradually through the entire trip. The change in velocity is caused by a centripetal force which makes it a 'proper acceleration'.

So the proper acceleration is 'obviously' not negligible in the Hefele-Keating experiment. HKE is analogous to the 'twin paradox' except that the acceleration is distributed. The hypothetical twin paradox requires an infinite force acting over an infinitesimal amount of time. The 'impulse' is constant, however. So what trips people up in the 'twin paradox' is often the use of infinitesimals, not relativity.

Which doesn't make the dimensional analysis any less necessary.


The jargon changes. When I went to college (1974?), the professor always insisted that we keep the words 'velocity' and 'speed' separate. Actually, more than one professor said that. However, there may not have been

Sorry, I must have missed that article. Also as you note a flub of terminology ain't all that bad if the application is sound. While an accurate use of terminology for a crappy application still leaves you with, well, a crappy application.
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ

Last edited by The Man; 8th February 2016 at 10:05 AM.
The Man 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 8th February 2016, 10:49 AM   #291
Pianoro
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,334
Originally Posted by Darwin123 View Post
A little history note: The English translation of Einstein's 1905 article refers to the 'velocity of light', not the 'speed of light'. At least it was in the translation that I read. In context of Maxwell's equations, AE meant 'speed of light'.

This probably was not the translators fault. It has been pointed out to me that words equivalent to 'velocity' and 'speed' are used in German. So it was probably Einstein that made the mistake.

Also the reviewers should have caught it. Perhaps they should have said, 'This was a ground breaking study, Dr. Einstein, but could you PLEASE correct your grammar'? This is 1905. We know the difference between velocity and speed. So remember to use common formalisms in the future!'
I don't think this was an error on Einstein's part. It would be odd indeed if he would have gotten his terminology wrong, wouldn't it be?

The word he uses in his paper is "Geschwindigkeit" which was translated correctly to velocity in the English article. As far as I know, and someone correct me if this is wrong, German does not have two distinct notions for speed and velocity. In physics, my understanding would be that "Geschwindigkeit" generally means velocity unless specified otherwise.

It's interesting to note that French also only has one word, "vitesse" which generally corresponds more to the word speed but sometimes also denotes the vector, depending on what context it is used it.
Pianoro 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 8th February 2016, 11:01 AM   #292
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,848
Originally Posted by Pianoro View Post
I don't think this was an error on Einstein's part. It would be odd indeed if he would have gotten his terminology wrong, wouldn't it be?

The word he uses in his paper is "Geschwindigkeit" which was translated correctly to velocity in the English article. As far as I know, and someone correct me if this is wrong, German does not have two distinct notions for speed and velocity. In physics, my understanding would be that "Geschwindigkeit" generally means velocity unless specified otherwise.

It's interesting to note that French also only has one word, "vitesse" which generally corresponds more to the word speed but sometimes also denotes the vector, depending on what context it is used it.
So does Dutch. It always seemed odd that English has two words.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 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 8th February 2016, 12:30 PM   #293
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,950
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
So does Dutch. It always seemed odd that English has two words.
Usually it's one from Anglo-Saxon that the common plebs use, and one from Latin that the posh nobs use. In this case, though, it's pretty useful to have both.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers 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 8th February 2016, 01:47 PM   #294
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,377
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
All kind of factories make such kind of errors, again and again, I still I buy Toyota.
OK, I didn't make it simple enough for you to understand. Perhaps I should have involved cows.

Quote:
During 50 years we heard that before Big Bang there was NOTHING.
No, we haven't. As usual you don't understand the science you try to attack.

Quote:
And apropos the newest ESA / WMAP, not only support that before the big bang there must had been “something”, - but ALSO supports that an anisotropic motion direction could exist.
Read the Danish article that claims the universes seems to have a preferred motion direction; this as well is based on the latest WMAP
http://videnskab.dk/miljo-naturviden...#comment-44389

Such prepared direction of motion is also supported by a NASA team as well (dark flow).
The art of Science is about how we can put many bricks together, in a way that eliminates so many unsolved mysteries as possibly, and in a way that forms a synthetic, off course as well in a way that can be proven.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eavab9siYg
Bjarne, make up your mind: Do scientists have a clue or not? You can't just cite science when it pleases you and reject it when it doesn't.

Quote:
We both know that the theory I was working with for years, not is something anyone would understand or invent in a weekend.
Yes it is. I understood it immidiately, and it is crap.

Quote:
It begins with a main thread that you have to stick to see where it leads you to.
The keywords were for 7 years ago; - if the cause of gravity is matters involvement in an elastic property of space, how would the universe would then looks like ?
Gibberish.

Quote:
Now add to that that it seems that dark flow could be true, - well then there is also acceleration connected to that. Could that be true? – Could the Allais effect be the evidence we need? – And is the fly by anomalies caused but the exact same force?
No.

Quote:
I am a poorly educated person, but with a will of steel.
Stubborn as a mule.


Bjarne, you don't have a clue. Sorry, but that is how it is.


Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans 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 8th February 2016, 02:32 PM   #295
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
..........I am a poorly educated person.....
That's a pretty reasonable explanation for the nonsense in this thread.
__________________
"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 8th February 2016, 02:47 PM   #296
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Hi old fellow, god to hear you still alive

All kind of factories make such kind of errors, again and again, I still I buy Toyota.

Or let’s be concrete.

During 50 years we heard that before Big Bang there was NOTHING.
Now new ESA / WMAP suggest that it must have been “something” before Big Bang..– see the EAS video link is below. – Ask you self WHAT COULD THAT SOMETHING BE ?

And apropos the newest ESA / WMAP, not only support that before the big bang there must had been “something”, - but ALSO supports that an anisotropic motion direction could exist.
Read the Danish article that claims the universes seems to have a preferred motion direction; this as well is based on the latest WMAP
http://videnskab.dk/miljo-naturviden...#comment-44389

Such prepared direction of motion is also supported by a NASA team as well (dark flow).
The art of Science is about how we can put many bricks together, in a way that eliminates so many unsolved mysteries as possibly, and in a way that forms a synthetic, off course as well in a way that can be proven.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eavab9siYg

We both know that the theory I was working with for years, not is something anyone would understand or invent in a weekend. It begins with a main thread that you have to stick to see where it leads you to.
The keywords were for 7 years ago; - if the cause of gravity is matters involvement in an elastic property of space, how would the universe would then looks like ?

Now add to that that it seems that dark flow could be true, - well then there is also acceleration connected to that. Could that be true? – Could the Allais effect be the evidence we need? – And is the fly by anomalies caused but the exact same force?
This is question and many many more automatically follows. Not something I need to invent.

My mission was to try to answer these questions.
I have discussed all this to test whether a lot of conclusion could be right or wrong. Don’t expect I am born to know all the answers. I am a poorly educated person, but with a will of steel.
Following the main thread, you is forced to get answers to hundreds of questions.

For example
  • Is the deformation of space correct. – YES,
  • Is gravity still a force YES
  • Is the curvature of sapce the cause of gravity NO
  • Are objects following the curvature of space YES
  • Is the ruler (and everything else) always extending or contracting proportional with time YES
  • Many more are the theoretical questions to ask, and answer..

One of the confused difficulties was whether a speed depending braking force could result in either deceleration or “negative speed” - or both..
I first really fully understood this this week. I am not educated mathematician, - I have to learn it all myself.

.’
Not only don't you, everything you have written indicates you can't.

And, based on your ongoing misinterpretations/misunderstandings and thus misuses of words, concepts and the math, it is obvious that there is a massive quantity (and quality) of material that you need to go to school at University level to learn to understand much less pontificate on. You clearly , as do others posting here such as M100 have no interest in doing such and thus show you are not remotely ready for the kind of praise, belief and interest you wish so much to achieve. I find it not worth bothering with your expulsions and thus will no longer bother commenting or reading the spouted claptrap spewed forth. Have an appropriate life.
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 8th February 2016, 05:08 PM   #297
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Usually it's one from Anglo-Saxon that the common plebs use, and one from Latin that the posh nobs use. In this case, though, it's pretty useful to have both.

Dave
Thank you for this hint! I looked up the etymology of the words. German does not have two separate words for speed and velocity. However, English has two words for speed and velocity! Indeed, one English word is Saxon and the other one Latin.

So it was the fault of the translator! He should have chosen the Englsih word ‘speed’ because the Geswindekeite in the context of the article does not imply a preferred direction. Unless Einstein was his own translator…


The English word ‘speed’ comes from the old English which is basically Saxon. The word speed has a surprising cognate, which is to ‘succeed’. To hurry is to succeed.
The English word velocity comes from the Latin word for ‘swift’. It seems that the Romans used the word velocity more in the sense of mechanical motion.

So in Roman times, the rich would refer to ‘velocity’. The Roman soldier had direction because his army was well organized. They marched in formation. The poor down trodden Saxon could at best have speed. The Saxon would bravely charge on the Roman legion, every man for himself.

Here are some links to the On-Line Etymology Dictionary

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=speed
‘Old English spedan (intransitive) "to succeed, prosper, grow rich, advance," from the stem of speed (n.). Compare Old Saxon spodian, Middle Dutch spoeden "hasten," Old High German spuoton "to succeed, prosper," German sputen "make haste, hurry." Meaning "to go hastily from place to place, move rapidly" is attested from c. 1200. Transitive meaning "cause to advance toward success" is from mid-13c.; that of "send forth with quickness, give a high speed to" is first recorded 1560s; that of "to increase the work rate of" (usually with up) is from 1856. Meaning "drive an automobile too fast" is from 1908. Related: Speeded; sped; speeding.’


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=velocity
velocity (n.)
early 15c., from Latin velocitatem (nominative velocitas) "swiftness, speed," from velox (genitive velocis) "swift, speedy, rapid, quick," of uncertain origin, perhaps related to vehere "carry" (see vehicle), or from the same root as vigil.’


Note that 'vigil' denotes to look carefully. When one looks carefully, one gaze points in a specific direction. So the Latin root of 'velocity' has the implication of 'looking in a preferred direction'. The Saxon root for speed does not imply 'looking' in any direction.

I have this vision of these Celts painted black running naked at the troops of Julius Caesar, tripping over each other. Meanwhile, the Romans are lines up with spears facing the Dark Flow of Celt soldiers.

Glorious death for the Celts and a messy victory for the Romans. This is the true difference between speed and velocity!


Physics teachers should be notified. The etymology could really help in an Introductory Physics course.

Last edited by Darwin123; 8th February 2016 at 05:09 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 8th February 2016, 11:53 PM   #298
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,471
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
OK, I didn't make it simple enough for you to understand. Perhaps I should have involved cows.

No, we haven't. As usual you don't understand the science you try to attack.

Bjarne, make up your mind: Do scientists have a clue or not? You can't just cite science when it pleases you and reject it when it doesn't.

Yes it is. I understood it immidiately, and it is crap.

Gibberish.

No.

Stubborn as a mule.

Bjarne, you don't have a clue. Sorry, but that is how it is.

Hans
It's a huge theory behind all what I claim.

If there really was something wrong, somewhere the theory should conflict with hard scientific evidence. It’s not the case. You cannot show it one single place, and that should be a problem you should recognize.

The fact is that the theory that have its own logic and require a lot of space. It is not me that decide the direction or where the theory will end, or whether or where it have to conflict with established science, or not.

The only thing I did is just to ask one single question, and this is; how would the universe looks like if the nature of space is elastic, and if particles like small whirlpools spins them self into the elastic structure of space. (if the nuclear interaction is a push / pull between two particles)

Well, there are plenty consequences.
First at all the curvature of space is true, but the curvature is not the cause of gravity, - rather gravity is caused by the elastic property of space (connecting matter and space) and hence gravity still a force.
Motion in space cannot happen without resistance, due to the same elastic property.
An absolute motion reference frame must exist. SR can only be correct understood in such absolute frame.
And I could continue the rest of the day.

As you see the theory is self-explanatory, I do not need to do much, just try to see where the main thread leads me, try to understand it, and write it down.

So as you can understand, it is like open up the gate for a wild animal.

The worse thing, - which mean your problem, - is that there are nothing to stop that wild animal.
Nowhere can you show where exactly this huge wild theory (when understood correct) will conflict with any hard evidently facts that shows it to be wrong.

Rather you can say, that everywhere where the theory demand “space” it will get it without any serious conflict with science at all, and it will even get large support everywhere where it reaches, - based on evidence and observation that shows the theory is correct.

That’s your problem..
You cannot attach it, but the theory is in fact attacking a lot you thought was true.

So what you are doing is attacking me as person, - I am only a writer, you should attach the wild unstoppable beast instead. – But you cannot, because you will be the loser.

Last edited by Bjarne; 9th February 2016 at 12:01 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 9th February 2016, 02:06 AM   #299
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 6,848
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Usually it's one from Anglo-Saxon that the common plebs use, and one from Latin that the posh nobs use. In this case, though, it's pretty useful to have both.
True, but it does always make me go when English-speaking people do that victory dance when a non-native speaker merely misuses the velocity or speed term, as if that means anything by itself. It's almost like they don't realize that they are the oddballs for having two different terms.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 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 9th February 2016, 02:16 AM   #300
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 29,950
Originally Posted by Darwin123 View Post
Thank you for this hint! I looked up the etymology of the words. German does not have two separate words for speed and velocity. However, English has two words for speed and velocity! Indeed, one English word is Saxon and the other one Latin.

So it was the fault of the translator! He should have chosen the Englsih word ‘speed’ because the Geswindekeite in the context of the article does not imply a preferred direction. Unless Einstein was his own translator…


The English word ‘speed’ comes from the old English which is basically Saxon. The word speed has a surprising cognate, which is to ‘succeed’. To hurry is to succeed.
The English word velocity comes from the Latin word for ‘swift’. It seems that the Romans used the word velocity more in the sense of mechanical motion.

So in Roman times, the rich would refer to ‘velocity’. The Roman soldier had direction because his army was well organized. They marched in formation. The poor down trodden Saxon could at best have speed. The Saxon would bravely charge on the Roman legion, every man for himself.

Here are some links to the On-Line Etymology Dictionary

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=speed
‘Old English spedan (intransitive) "to succeed, prosper, grow rich, advance," from the stem of speed (n.). Compare Old Saxon spodian, Middle Dutch spoeden "hasten," Old High German spuoton "to succeed, prosper," German sputen "make haste, hurry." Meaning "to go hastily from place to place, move rapidly" is attested from c. 1200. Transitive meaning "cause to advance toward success" is from mid-13c.; that of "send forth with quickness, give a high speed to" is first recorded 1560s; that of "to increase the work rate of" (usually with up) is from 1856. Meaning "drive an automobile too fast" is from 1908. Related: Speeded; sped; speeding.’


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=velocity
velocity (n.)
early 15c., from Latin velocitatem (nominative velocitas) "swiftness, speed," from velox (genitive velocis) "swift, speedy, rapid, quick," of uncertain origin, perhaps related to vehere "carry" (see vehicle), or from the same root as vigil.’


Note that 'vigil' denotes to look carefully. When one looks carefully, one gaze points in a specific direction. So the Latin root of 'velocity' has the implication of 'looking in a preferred direction'. The Saxon root for speed does not imply 'looking' in any direction.

I have this vision of these Celts painted black running naked at the troops of Julius Caesar, tripping over each other. Meanwhile, the Romans are lines up with spears facing the Dark Flow of Celt soldiers.

Glorious death for the Celts and a messy victory for the Romans. This is the true difference between speed and velocity!


Physics teachers should be notified. The etymology could really help in an Introductory Physics course.
Nominated. And I feel proud to have had a part in it.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers 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 9th February 2016, 02:24 AM   #301
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
........ the theory is in fact attacking a lot you thought was true.

So what you are doing is attacking me as person, - I am only a writer, you should attach the wild unstoppable beast instead. – But you cannot, because you will be the loser.
OK. Make some predictions which your theory comes up with, but which is at variance with what GR &/or SR predict. Something actually testable, observable, repeatable. Then we can all go away and wait......



............whilst waiting for the test results, you should learn some maths, and then present a proper version of your theory to some peer reviewed journals. Do let us know what happens.
__________________
"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.

Last edited by MikeG; 9th February 2016 at 02:29 AM.
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 9th February 2016, 02:24 AM   #302
Daylightstar
Philosopher
 
Daylightstar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
... it is like open up the gate for a wild animal.
... that wild animal.
... this huge wild theory ... the wild unstoppable beast instead. – ...
That so called wild unstoppable beast of an animal (cow?) however appears to be a corpse. It's not unstoppable, its inanimate, it gets dragged across the internet by you but it just can not walk on its own.

You can drag this corpse along with a will of steel, it just can not live
__________________
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 9th February 2016, 03:12 AM   #303
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 12,890
Originally Posted by Pianoro View Post
It's interesting to note that French also only has one word, "vitesse" which generally corresponds more to the word speed but sometimes also denotes the vector, depending on what context it is used it.
Not exactly true.

Yes, in French, speed is "la vitesse", literally "the speed". While it can also informally mean velocity (the same way we misuse it in English) a French physicist or mathematician would still use "la velocité" in any scientific context

From the French wikipedia page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9locit%C3%A9
"Vélocité, en physique, pour désigner le vecteur vitesse — combine la notion de vitesse et celle de direction d’un mouvement, par opposition à la vitesse, qui ne comprend pas la direction. Une voiture qui va à 60 km/h a établi sa vitesse. Si elle va à 60 km/h vers le Nord, elle a une vélocité."

Translation
Velocity in physics describes the velocity vector - combining the notion of speed and the direction of movement, as opposed to the speed, which does not include direction. A car going 60 km/h has a speed. If it goes 60 km/h to the north, it has a velocity.
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings
If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list.
This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !
smartcooky 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 9th February 2016, 03:49 AM   #304
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,019
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
The only thing I did is just to ask one single question, and this is; how would the universe looks like if the nature of space is elastic, and if particles like small whirlpools spins them self into the elastic structure of space. (if the nuclear interaction is a push / pull between two particles)
So you stated off with a solution, and now you're trying to find questions that it can answer? You're doing science backwards. First you should find anomalies that aren't adequately or accurately described by modern physics, and then try to find a solution.
__________________
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 9th February 2016, 04:01 AM   #305
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 26,019
Originally Posted by Darwin123 View Post
Note that 'vigil' denotes to look carefully. When one looks carefully, one gaze points in a specific direction.
That's not really accurate. "Vigil" as a word is more concerned with staying awake than looking in a particular direction. The ultimate root is the PIE "weg", which means to be active, and which is also where the word "wake" (in both senses of 1) to not be asleep and 2) a funeral rite) comes from.

The more likely reason for why "velocity" has the more scientific meaning is that Anglo Saxon was considered vulgar (which is why common non-rude Anglo Saxon words became swear-words in English), so the educated classes would have been less likely to use it, particularly in formal writings.
__________________
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 9th February 2016, 07:10 AM   #306
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,271
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
True, but it does always make me go when English-speaking people do that victory dance when a non-native speaker merely misuses the velocity or speed term, as if that means anything by itself. It's almost like they don't realize that they are the oddballs for having two different terms.
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary."
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 9th February 2016, 07:17 AM   #307
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
All of which is fine in colloquial everyday English, but in physics.....words have meanings.
__________________
"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 9th February 2016, 07:20 AM   #308
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,271
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
All of which is fine in colloquial everyday English, but in physics.....words have meanings.
But as long as you define your terms it can be acceptable to use one word in different ways. Mass being the prime example. Which is the term it refers to with out qualifier rest mass or relativistic mass?

Yes I know that relativistic mass has fallen off being considered a useful concept but it still illustrates the point.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 9th February 2016, 07:26 AM   #309
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,822
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary."
And said by a Canadian at that. This aphorism was created by James_NicollWP. Credit where credit is due and all that.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto 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 9th February 2016, 08:26 AM   #310
Pianoro
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,334
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Not exactly true.

Yes, in French, speed is "la vitesse", literally "the speed". While it can also informally mean velocity (the same way we misuse it in English) a French physicist or mathematician would still use "la velocité" in any scientific context.
You are right. Thanks for the correction. Looks like it is German and Dutch standing alone in their lack of descriptiveness.
Pianoro 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 9th February 2016, 09:36 AM   #311
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,933
We seem to have gone off topic! However, while we're there, I once heard it mentioned that Churchill's famous 'On the beaches' speech contained only one word that isn't derived from Anglo-Saxon. Guess which one. And guess who we borrowed it from. 'Nuff said.
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
jonesdave116 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 9th February 2016, 10:32 AM   #312
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 18,822
Originally Posted by jonesdave116 View Post
We seem to have gone off topic! However, while we're there, I once heard it mentioned that Churchill's famous 'On the beaches' speech contained only one word that isn't derived from Anglo-Saxon. Guess which one. And guess who we borrowed it from. 'Nuff said.
You caused me to Google for that speech and I wonder which word it supposed is?

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/reso...-on-thebeaches

I would guess the word is either Nazi or Gestapo and whichever one it is was borrowed from the infamous Mr Hilter (ob. Monty P ref). However, the fourth to last word is liberation which does not sound very Anglo-Saxon to my ears.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto 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 9th February 2016, 10:45 AM   #313
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,882
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
The theory of relativity is a holy cow, it is forbidden not to fall on you knees
Gee, that doesn't seem like ideology at all.

Quote:
The Theory of Relativity will begin to fall apart in 2016/2017
One thing is sure: crackpot theories won't fall apart anytime soon.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 9th February 2016, 10:52 AM   #314
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48,271
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
You caused me to Google for that speech and I wonder which word it supposed is?

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/reso...-on-thebeaches

I would guess the word is either Nazi or Gestapo and whichever one it is was borrowed from the infamous Mr Hilter (ob. Monty P ref). However, the fourth to last word is liberation which does not sound very Anglo-Saxon to my ears.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us...glish/liberate

From the latin Liber meaning free.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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 9th February 2016, 10:56 AM   #315
jonesdave116
Illuminator
 
jonesdave116's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 3,933
Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto View Post
You caused me to Google for that speech and I wonder which word it supposed is?

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/reso...-on-thebeaches

I would guess the word is either Nazi or Gestapo and whichever one it is was borrowed from the infamous Mr Hilter (ob. Monty P ref). However, the fourth to last word is liberation which does not sound very Anglo-Saxon to my ears.
Yes, I should have looked up the WHOLE speech. I think I originally saw or heard the reference in either a John Julius Norwich book, or possibly in an old TV series called 'The Making of English' (think the presenter was Canadian!).
I think, in retrospect, it refers purely to the lines:
"we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender."

Basically, the call to arms bit.

EDIT:
The TV series was 'The Story of English'. If you can find it, or the accompanying book, then it is well worth seeing.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/story-of-english/
__________________
“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Last edited by jonesdave116; 9th February 2016 at 11:45 AM.
jonesdave116 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 9th February 2016, 11:05 AM   #316
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,882
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Try to shut some muons towards North, but be aware the dark flow speed is relative slow 600km/s
...what?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You don't actually understand that video, or its implications, or you would know it's not relevant here.
So I take it that he just copy-pasted the OP because he thought it "proved" that GR is wrong. Unfortunately he picked the wrong forum for that.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 9th February 2016, 11:11 AM   #317
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,882
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Gravitational waves are never detected directly, - they should.
Nothing is ever detected directly.

You really don't know anything about this topic.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 9th February 2016, 11:14 AM   #318
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,882
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
You cannot attach it, but the theory is in fact attacking a lot you thought was true.
Science is all about changing what we thought was true. The trick is to prove it.

Quote:
So what you are doing is attacking me as person, - I am only a writer, you should attach the wild unstoppable beast instead. – But you cannot, because you will be the loser.
Ignorance breeds hubris. Classic.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 9th February 2016, 12:06 PM   #319
Beady
Philosopher
 
Beady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: 42d 45'23.3"N, 84d 35' 10.8'W, 840'>MSL
Posts: 6,882
Y'know, Bjarne is to be honestly congratulated on one thing: he has not compared himself to Galileo. Time was, every crackpot online had "Galileo" for a middle name. OTOH, he is self-described as uneducated, so maybe he doesn't know who Galileo was?

Someone here has challenged Bjarne to demonstrate how "his" theory can predict a future event or condition? Why wait for the prediction to (fail to) manifest? Why doesn't he demonstrate how it describes a known event or condition? Seems to me that the test shouldn't be whether it fails, but whether it might ever, under any circumstances, show any signs of working.

Oh crap!
__________________
I don't care what you do to the women and children,
leave me alone!

Last edited by Beady; 9th February 2016 at 12:09 PM.
Beady 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 9th February 2016, 12:07 PM   #320
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,882
Originally Posted by Beady View Post
Y'know, Bjarne is to be honestly congratulated on one thing: he has not compared himself to Galileo.
Give it time.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 02:18 AM.
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.