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

Reply
Old 14th November 2019, 10:17 AM   #1441
SDG
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 475
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The platform observer will measure himself aging faster than the train observer.

The train observer will measure himself aging faster than the platform observer.

That's the twin paradox.

It is resolved in the way that has already been explained to you.


Pixel,
Look at the Hafele–Keating experiment.
Let's say an airplane starts from a tall building flying westwards.
The airplane does not change heights. We are trying to eliminate gravitational effect.
The passenger on the airplane will return older than a person that stayed on the building based on this experiment.
There goes your twin paradox.
SDG
SDG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2019, 11:40 AM   #1442
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,622
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Pixel,
Look at the Hafele–Keating experiment.
Let's say an airplane starts from a tall building flying westwards.
The airplane does not change heights. We are trying to eliminate gravitational effect.
The passenger on the airplane will return older than a person that stayed on the building based on this experiment.
There goes your twin paradox.
SDG

The experiment showed that the passenger on the airplane heading westward, thus (most likely, unless it's a very fast plane or at a very high latitude) moving eastward with the earth's rotation at a lower velocity than the eastward rotational velocity of the person on the building and moving a lesser distance during the experiment, has aged more. (Just like the twin who stays on earth while the other goes to a distant star and back, in the more usual version of the twin "paradox." The twin traveling farther, upon returning, has aged less.)

Note that I say "has aged more" or "has aged less" upon the event of the twins returning to the same place. Not "ages faster" or "ages slower" while the experiment is going on. Who is aging faster or slower during any particular part of the experiment depends on which reference frame you're observing from.

So if the twin on the plane would observe the building twin's clock running slower during the trip, why does he end up (very slightly) older at the end? Despite eliminating the gravitational effect? The answer is, because the building twin's direction of movement changes more (rotating more eastward around the center of the earth) than the plane twin. The building twin's path is more similar to the "going out to a distant star and then returning" twin's in the more conventional version. That's assuming the speed of the plane is less than twice the earth's rotation speed at the top of the building at whatever latitude the experiment is being conducted.

(The usual dumbed-down resolution of the paradox, that the journey twin undergoes acceleration that the stationary twin doesn't and that itself accounts for the difference, is actually false. The differences in acceleration prove that the paths are distinguishable, not equivalent, but they're not the actual cause of the differences in elapsed times. The important thing is the change(s) in the direction of the traveling twin's world line. You can show the twin paradox effect in a thought experiment where GR is not considered and no clock accelerates, as explained in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4.)
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 14th November 2019 at 11:50 AM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2019, 03:14 PM   #1443
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,005
Thumbs down Lies about the Hafele–Keating experiment and the twin paradox

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
[Look at the Hafele–Keating experiment. ...
15 November 2019 SDG: Lies about the Hafele–Keating experiment and the twin paradox.

This is well known, textbook SR, e.g. in the textbooks SDG has been posting images from. The Wikipedia articles exist. Other sources exist. Thus SDG is lying about them.

The Hafele–Keating experiment showed that travelling clocks returned physically younger than the atomic clocks that stayed on the ground. Time dilation is a real world fact that has been demonstrated again and again ! For example, GPS satellites have clocks adjusted for GR time dilation and GPS receivers adjust for SR time dilation to get more accurate results.

A "passenger on the airplane will return older" lie.

A "There goes your twin paradox" lie when the Hafele–Keating experiment confirms that the travelling twin will return younger than the stay at home twin.

The twin paradox was proposed in 1911 and resolved in 1913 !
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2019, 03:27 PM   #1444
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,005
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
The platform observer will measure himself aging faster than the train observer.

The train observer will measure himself aging faster than the platform observer.

That's the twin paradox.
Not quite right, Pixel42. The symmetry between the observers is because the Lorentz transformation is symmetrical - it only depends on the speed between the observers.

The twin paradox has the extra element of the observers meeting again and the travelling twin is seen to be younger than the other twin. The resolution is that the travelling twin has to accelerate and thus breaks the symmetry from the Lorentz transformation. For an instant acceleration (ignore that the twin becom strawberry jam - this is a thought experiment), the twin changes to a different inertial reference frame and SR says there is no problem. For a constant acceleration, we can apply GR and gravitational time dilation.
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2019, 03:37 PM   #1445
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,989
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
Robin,
the SR says as per your post use the coordinate time readings to create the interval on the time axis.
That's were the time dilation is.
It does not work. It cannot be done on the return leg of the round-trip.
The SR is broken.
What are you calling the return leg? As far as I can see all of the calculations are working consistently.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2019, 04:43 PM   #1446
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,005
Thumbs down A deluded "The SR is broken" lie

Originally Posted by SDG View Post
...The SR is broken.
15 November 2019 SDG: A deluded "The SR is broken" lie.

A deluded lie because SDG has access to at least 1 SR textbook, Wikipedia exists and other sources on SR exist. They show how SR has been tested and is not broken. There are many textbook examples of the match of SR with empirical data including the Hafele–Keating experiment that he has cited !
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2019, 06:58 PM   #1447
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,989
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
You can show the twin paradox effect in a thought experiment where GR is not considered and no clock accelerates, as explained in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4.)
That is a good video.

A clever move to have two observers pass each other, rather than one observer with an instantaneous reversal of velocity (which makes the "stationary" observer dramatically age in an instant as the author of my textbook has it).
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th November 2019, 08:24 PM   #1448
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,989
Originally Posted by SDG View Post
If our units of measure are ticks back an forth then


Then it follows that


Why this would not be the case?
Where is ?

And what is 2? Proper time or ?

An interval involves 8 values, you cannot claim equality based on just one value.
Quote:
What happens if geometrically you do a projection of red lines to t' axis in the -x direction?
How many ticks are going to be on t' axis between ?
SDG
Good question. The illustration below is of my diagrams rotated until we are looking directly at the tx plane in both frames.

As you can see the projections of on the t' axis give you two negative values and one positive. These are -3, -1 and 1

So, from the platform frame duration is 2 seconds and is 4 seconds, ie the dilation you would expect of



gamma2  
v0.866  
    
Event: C0   
t0t'-3
x1.732x'3.464
y0y'0
    
Event: C2   
t2t'1
x1.732x'0
y0y'0
    
24
0-3.464
00
-4 -4
2 2

gamma2  
v0.866  
    
Event: C0   
t0t'-3
x1.732x'3.464
y0y'0
    
Event: C1   
t1t'-1
x1.732x'1.732
y0y'0
    
12
0-1.732
00
-1 -1
1 1
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"

Last edited by Robin; 14th November 2019 at 08:26 PM.
Robin 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2019, 05:57 AM   #1449
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,989
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
(The usual dumbed-down resolution of the paradox, that the journey twin undergoes acceleration that the stationary twin doesn't and that itself accounts for the difference, is actually false. The differences in acceleration prove that the paths are distinguishable, not equivalent, but they're not the actual cause of the differences in elapsed times. The important thing is the change(s) in the direction of the traveling twin's world line. You can show the twin paradox effect in a thought experiment where GR is not considered and no clock accelerates, as explained in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgvajuvSpF4.)
I must say that I am not convinced that there is much difference between saying that the acceleration causes the difference or the changing direction of the world line causes the difference. They seem to be pretty much the same thing.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2019, 06:55 AM   #1450
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,622
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
I must say that I am not convinced that there is much difference between saying that the acceleration causes the difference or the changing direction of the world line causes the difference. They seem to be pretty much the same thing.

Yeah, the distinction is a bit subtle, because of course a change in direction is also an acceleration.

The accelerations are also crucial to resolving the most seemingly paradoxical part of the paradox: explaining why the scenario is asymmetrical between the twins; that is, why the traveling twin can't regard herself as the stationary twin and thus expect to have aged more instead of less at the end.

However, if you think of the causes of the elapsed time difference in quantitative terms, the magnitude of the difference in elapsed times once the world lines meet up again can't be calculated from the acceleration parameters alone. Imagine two space ships with identical engines, each making an out-and-back journey using the same acceleration parameters. (Each accelerates to the same relativistic speed at the same acceleration rate, cruises inertially for several years, accelerates to turn around in the same way, etc.) The only difference is, one of them goes twice as far, and thus spends (about) twice as long cruising. If the short-tripper ends up, say, five years younger upon return than the triplet who stayed home, the long-tripper will end up about ten years younger, despite having undergone the same accelerations. The time dilation effect applies to the entire trip, not just the periods of acceleration.

You can also examine the relativistic (GR) effects of the accelerations involved in various scenarios. A typical relativistic twin-paradox voyage to a local star might involve a few months or years of acceleration at 1G for each maneuver (initial acceleration, reversal, and final deceleration). How much more do you age over your lifetime due to living in earth's 1G gravity field than if you lived in a spacecraft orbiting the sun at earth's distance? A fraction of a second? A few seconds? A few minutes? I'm not sure of the figure but it's not the years you get from the twin paradox scenario. The GR effects of the acceleration periods on the astronauts' clocks is a minor correction to the SR twin paradox phenomenon, not the cause of it.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...

Last edited by Myriad; 15th November 2019 at 06:56 AM.
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2019, 07:24 AM   #1451
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 15,622
I found the answer for the time dilation effect of 1G acceleration/gravity. It turns out, not surprisingly, that the time dilation due to sitting in a gravitational field is exactly the same as the time dilation of a relative velocity equal to the escape velocity from that field.

Earth escape velocity is about 11.2km/s, which (spoiler alert) is not generally considered a relativistic speed unless you're using extremely accurate clocks. Time at 1G (or 11.2 km/s) is slowed down by about 70 billionths of a percent. You age 1.54 seconds less in 70 years.

So the traveling twin's clock being slowed down by the necessary accelerations for the trip does not account for the age differences in any significant way.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2019, 07:55 AM   #1452
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 10,989
The way I am thinking about it is to imagine the world line for the moving twin moving off the the right and curving back to meet the first twin, then breaking that up into a number of straight line segments.

Then I imagine the lines of simultaneity for each of those segments, first sloping down the the left then the slope decreasing and finally starting to slope up to the left.

That way is it easy to picture how a turn changes the relative ages of the observers.

On the other hand, trying to transform this into a frame where the moving user has the opinion that he never moved, but stayed where he was.

You just end up with lots of little pieces that don't fit together. Not in a flat plane at least.

I am guessing that this is the point where GR has to take over.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2019, 02:00 PM   #1453
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
How is it possible that the change of inclination in the attached image/file only is 10 degree ? - relative to what https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig3_228421079
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2019, 02:18 PM   #1454
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,592
Mercury transited the sun last Monday just as predicted. Relativity must still be hanging on by a thread.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2019, 02:27 PM   #1455
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
Mercury transited the sun last Monday just as predicted. Relativity must still be hanging on by a thread.
A red thread goes through
  • Mercury's precision anomaly.
  • Flyby anomalies and
  • Omuamuha's mysterious acceleration.

It is the same law of nature that is responsible, and it has nothing to do with the old and dying theory of relativity..

Last edited by Bjarne; 15th November 2019 at 02:29 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2019, 04:25 PM   #1456
Steve
Philosopher
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,074
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
A red thread goes through
  • Mercury's precision anomaly.
  • Flyby anomalies and
  • Omuamuha's mysterious acceleration.

It is the same law of nature that is responsible, and it has nothing to do with the old and dying theory of relativity..
In what way is the theory of relativity (general, special, or both?) dying? Everything it has ever predicted is still valid.
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 02:33 AM   #1457
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
In what way is the theory of relativity (general, special, or both?) dying? Everything it has ever predicted is still valid.
The nature of space is completely misunderstood.
The connection between Matter and Space is not understood at all.
The cause effect (process) responsible for clocks ticking at different rate, is also not understood at all.

This theory is really only a hypothesis; one can easily modify this hypothesis and make it far more easily understandable and coherent with the much greater knowledge we have today, just be assuming space real nature is elastic. It will solve, a LOT of problems, and require a modified version of the theory of relativity.

Conflict with quantum mechanics is not necessary, watch this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNEBhwimJWs
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 04:03 AM   #1458
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 13,171
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
A red thread goes through
  • Mercury's precision anomaly.
  • Flyby anomalies and
  • Omuamuha's mysterious acceleration.

It is the same law of nature that is responsible, and it has nothing to do with the old and dying theory of relativity..
What is the connection between those things, and how do you know?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2019, 10:56 AM   #1459
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,955
Originally Posted by Steve View Post
In what way is the theory of relativity (general, special, or both?) dying? Everything it has ever predicted is still valid.


It’s not, but as you can see from Bjarne’s reply he doesn’t understand it, so he’s trying to replace real science with a fever dream of his own creation. A major problem is he hasn’t actually come up with a consistent theory of his own, let alone one that could do better than relativity at any predictions. He can’t even bother to come up with equations that match his own fantasies!

His efforts to overrun Relativity are limited to insulting others and living in a fantasy world where he’ll be posthumously vindicated by some vague “discovery” in the future.

It’s sad really.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 04:05 PM   #1460
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,005
Exclamation Irrelevant question about the NEAR flyby and its [B]planned[/B] trajectory

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
How is it possible that the change of inclination in the attached image/file only is 10 degree ...
18 November 2019 Bjarne: Irrelevant question about the NEAR flyby and its planned trajectory.

It is "only is 10 degree" because that was the planned trajectory of NEAR as anyone can read in the title of the paper: NEAR mission design !
The actual change in inclination is 9.52 degrees.
Emphasizes his ignorance about astronomy again with "relative to what" !

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th November 2019 at 04:15 PM.
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 04:21 PM   #1461
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,005
A deluded "red thread" lie.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
A red thread goes through ...
18 November 2019 Bjarne: A deluded "red thread" lie.

GR has matched Mercury's perihelion precession for about a century now.

Bjarne's delusions have not matched Mercury's perihelion precession.
Bjarne's delusions have not matched the flyby anomalies.
Bjarne's delusions have not matched the ʻOumuamua acceleration.

A deluded "dying theory of relativity" lie when SR and GR are not affected by the obscure delusions of an ignorant, unknown internet physics crank.
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2019, 04:37 PM   #1462
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,005
Thumbs down Deluded lies about SR, GR and QM

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
...
18 November 2019 Bjarne: Deluded lies about SR, GR and QM.

The delusion in the lies is that he has been spewing out his ideas for many years and still has not learned what science is or how SR, GR and QM work!
Our understanding of spacetime matches the real universe.
The connection between space and matter is fully understood - gravity is explained by matter and energy curving spacetime.
The cause of "clocks ticking at different rate" is speed (SR) or gravity (GR).

A delusion that he even has a hypothesis - delusions that do not match the universe are not a hypothesis.

He lies about a PBS video. Quantum Gravity and the Hardest Problem in Physics is quantum gravity is hard because GR is in conflict with QM !
The first sentence by the narrator is: GR and QM cannot be simultaneously true - they must be united in an undiscovered theory. This is a video on the conflicts of GR and QM as a precursor to videos on the possible solutions. A mild conflict is the black hole information paradox. GR + Heisenberg uncertainty = impossible to measure length smaller than a Planck length due to formation of black holes. This leads to a fragmentation of space and time. QM is fields on top of a static space time, GR is a field in a dynamic spacetime. The need to quantize spacetime is a "disaster" for quantum gravity. Perturbation theory (fundamental to QM) cannot be used for GR.

Last edited by Reality Check; 17th November 2019 at 04:58 PM.
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 01:29 PM   #1463
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
What is the connection between those things, and how do you know?
If the theory of relativity was correct it should not fail to explain the cause of Pioneer Anomalies, Flyby anomalies, the mysterious acceleration of oumuamua, and even so-called dark Matter. If the nature of space really was understood there would be no mystery what dark energy really is. And PLENTY similar kinematic mysteries should also not exist. Furthermore, so long no-one have any idea how matter and Space is "connected" or how matter feels or is guided by the so-called "curvature of space", - such ideas is nothing but speculation. Our paradigm is simply based on old fashion and narrow minded brain death concrete speculation. There is another way to understand relativity much more perfect, much more holistic, however right now there is too much concrete in peoples heads

Last edited by Bjarne; 18th November 2019 at 01:53 PM.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 02:48 PM   #1464
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,005
Exclamation Igorant delusion that relativity has to explain everything and an insane lie

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
If the theory of relativity was correct it should not fail to explain the cause of Pioneer Anomalies...
19 November 2018 Bjarne: Ignorant delusion that relativity has to explain everything and insane lies !
Relativity has to explain phenomena that is related to relativity ! An object traveling at relativistic speeds needs SR. An object traveling in a strong Gevity field (such as Mercury) needs GR.
  • An insane lie that there is a Pioneer anomaly.
    Insane because this has been explained to him many times. It was resolved years ago as thermal recoil.
  • A ignorant delusion that relativity has to explain the acceleration of 'Oumuamua.
    non-gravitational acceleration to ʻOumuamua's trajectory, potentially consistent with a push from solar radiation pressure
  • An insane lie that relativity has to explain dark matter.
    Dark matter are the observations that there is more matter in the universe than visible matter. The candidates for dark matter particles come from QM.
  • An insane lie that relativity does not explain dark energy.
    A non-zero cosmological constant in GR explains dark energy. This lie is insane because this is well known textbook cosmology.
Usual lies about GR, curvature of space etc. Usual stupidity that his delusions can match over 100 years of extremely well tested physics (SR and GR). Repeated insanity of saying SR is wrong when he uses SR (the Lorentz factor) .

18 November 2019 Bjarne: Deluded lies about SR, GR and QM, and a PBS video.

Last edited by Reality Check; 18th November 2019 at 02:57 PM.
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2019, 07:27 PM   #1465
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 13,171
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
If the theory of relativity was correct it should not fail to explain the cause of Pioneer Anomalies, Flyby anomalies, the mysterious acceleration of oumuamua,
Complex systems behave in ways that are difficult to model. For example, regarding Oumuamua both light pressure and outgassing are reasonable proposals for the accelaration. It's not like there is no source of acceleration possible and yet we observed it. It's just that we don't know much about the object and it's characteristics, given a typical comet the acceleration was odd because we didn't observe a tail, but that doesn't mean there's anything inconsistent with GR in the behaviour of Oumuamua.


Quote:
and even so-called dark Matter.
Dark matter is entirely consistent with and understood within the framework of general relativity. The mystery regarding dark matter is in particle physics, not relativity.

Quote:
If the nature of space really was understood there would be no mystery what dark energy really is.
Again, the mystery regarding dark energy is one related to particle physics, not GR. We can derive a calculation of what the vacuum energy should be from QM, but it's magnitude is off by 120 powers of ten. There are proposed solutions to this problem, but so far it's a difficult problem.

This issue, though, has nothing to do with GR, at leat not necessarily. If the dark energy is a cosmological constant, it works entirely consistently with the theory.

The way in which GR may relate to both of these problems is that if GR is an approximation to a more complete theory, the ways in which those theories diverge could give, perhaps, give results that look like dark matter or dark energy, and people have pursued these ideas. But they are speculative idea, and there's nothing about either dark matter or dark energy that is inconsistent with GR. If we found the dark matter particles in the LHC, GR could stay just as it is and be consistent with all observations.

Quote:
Furthermore, so long no-one have any idea how matter and Space is "connected" or how matter feels or is guided by the so-called "curvature of space", - such ideas is nothing but speculation.
Under GR this is very straightforward. Matter moves along geodesics through curved spacetime.

Anyway, based on your reply, you think the connection between those things is that they are not fully understood and it's potentially possible for a new theory to both explain all of those so called anomalies and everything else that is explained by general relativity. Maybe, but I think they are far more likely to be consistent with GR while some other dynamics are also in play.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 06:14 AM   #1466
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,955
Post Bjarne is lying AGAIN.

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
If the theory of relativity was correct it should not fail to explain the cause of Pioneer Anomalies, Flyby anomalies, the mysterious acceleration of oumuamua, and even so-called dark Matter.
1. It's rich for a guy who can't even come up with ONE equation that matches his pet hypothesis to criticize a theory whose mathematics is used to do real world work and build real technology.

2. You are lying about what Relativity can and cannot explain. Some of the examples you've given have been REPEATEDLY explained to you and yet you keep lying and pretending things like the Pioneer Anomaly remain unexplained.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pionee...l_recoil_force

Support for the Thermal Origin of the Pioneer Anomaly

Quote:
ABSTRACT
We investigate the possibility that the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft is due to the recoil force associated with an anisotropic emission of thermal radiation off the vehicles. To this end, relying on the project and spacecraft design documentation, we constructed a comprehensive finite-element thermal model of the two spacecraft. Then, we numerically solve thermal conduction and radiation equations using the actual flight telemetry as boundary conditions. We use the results of this model to evaluate the effect of the thermal recoil force on the Pioneer 10 spacecraft at various heliocentric distances. We found that the magnitude, temporal behavior, and direction of the resulting thermal acceleration are all similar to the properties of the observed anomaly. As a novel element of our investigation, we develop a parametrized model for the thermal recoil force and estimate the coefficients of this model independently from navigational Doppler data. We find no statistically significant difference between the two estimates and conclude that, once the thermal recoil force is properly accounted for, no anomalous acceleration remains.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 08:59 AM   #1467
Bjarne
Illuminator
 
Bjarne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,454
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Complex systems behave in ways that are difficult to model. For example, regarding Oumuamua both light pressure and outgassing are reasonable proposals for the accelaration. It's not like there is no source of acceleration possible and yet we observed it. It's just that we don't know much about the object and it's characteristics, given a typical comet the acceleration was odd because we didn't observe a tail, but that doesn't mean there's anything inconsistent with GR in the behaviour of Oumuamua.


Dark matter is entirely consistent with and understood within the framework of general relativity. The mystery regarding dark matter is in particle physics, not relativity.

Again, the mystery regarding dark energy is one related to particle physics, not GR. We can derive a calculation of what the vacuum energy should be from QM, but it's magnitude is off by 120 powers of ten. There are proposed solutions to this problem, but so far it's a difficult problem.

This issue, though, has nothing to do with GR, at leat not necessarily. If the dark energy is a cosmological constant, it works entirely consistently with the theory.

The way in which GR may relate to both of these problems is that if GR is an approximation to a more complete theory, the ways in which those theories diverge could give, perhaps, give results that look like dark matter or dark energy, and people have pursued these ideas. But they are speculative idea, and there's nothing about either dark matter or dark energy that is inconsistent with GR. If we found the dark matter particles in the LHC, GR could stay just as it is and be consistent with all observations.

Under GR this is very straightforward. Matter moves along geodesics through curved spacetime.

Anyway, based on your reply, you think the connection between those things is that they are not fully understood and it's potentially possible for a new theory to both explain all of those so called anomalies and everything else that is explained by general relativity. Maybe, but I think they are far more likely to be consistent with GR while some other dynamics are also in play.
Dark energy and dark matter are both phenomena´s revealing that we have not understood the nature of space.
The nature of space is what the theory of relativity describe or rather should describe.
That nature of space is elastic, rather than “curved” and this elastic property is how space is connected with matter (energy).
The cause of gravity, is based on the same elastic property of space.
Realistic Resistance against motion, (due to true kinetic energy increments) - as well release of such resistance / tension / energy (if energy is “lost”) is just a different aspect of the same elastic nature of space always connecting space and energy.
Release of that space-tension is what dark-energy is “made off”, if energy is lost, dark energy is the result, since space and energy is intensive connected.
A complete theory of relativity must content a complete understanding of the nature of space. Otherwise, such is incoherent ridiculous: half-brained – half-idiotic, - halfhearted, - speculation, and nothing else than 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 09:44 AM   #1468
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 14,150
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Dark energy and dark matter are both phenomena´s revealing that we have not understood the nature of space.
The nature of space is what the theory of relativity describe or rather should describe.
That nature of space is elastic, rather than “curved” and this elastic property is how space is connected with matter (energy).
The cause of gravity, is based on the same elastic property of space.
Realistic Resistance against motion, (due to true kinetic energy increments) - as well release of such resistance / tension / energy (if energy is “lost”) is just a different aspect of the same elastic nature of space always connecting space and energy.
Release of that space-tension is what dark-energy is “made off”, if energy is lost, dark energy is the result, since space and energy is intensive connected.
A complete theory of relativity must content a complete understanding of the nature of space. Otherwise, such is incoherent ridiculous: half-brained – half-idiotic, - halfhearted, - speculation, and nothing else than that.
As already explained to you "elastic" and "curved" are not mutually exclusive. In fact, as already explained to you here before, in order for your 'elastic' space to stretch just linearly in one dimension, other dimension(s) (of at least a 3d space) will have to be curved. You have even previously refereed to your elastic space twisting, hence curving. By denying the curved nature of space you deny even your very own "elastic nature of space".

Again, what you need to do first is specifically define these 'elastic properties of space' in an at least self-consistent fashion. As it stands now your "elastic property of space" just doesn't agree with, well, your "elastic property of space". Again do please let us know when you can at least agree with just yourself.
__________________
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 09:55 AM   #1469
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,955
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
A complete theory of relativity must content a complete understanding of the nature of space. Otherwise, such is incoherent ridiculous: half-brained – half-idiotic, - halfhearted, - speculation, and nothing else than that.
But enough about your BS hypothesis with no functional mathematics to support it. This thread is about Relativity.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 09:59 AM   #1470
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,955
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Derp trimmed
Has ANYONE ever actually BOUGHT the book advertised on science27.com?
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!

Last edited by halleyscomet; 19th November 2019 at 10:27 AM.
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 10:07 AM   #1471
wea
Critical Thinker
 
wea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: EU
Posts: 396
Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
incoherent ridiculous: half-brained – half-idiotic, - halfhearted, - speculation
kindergarten, elastic ... did you mean a geoboard ?

Has it fallen yet?
wea is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 10:34 AM   #1472
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,955
Originally Posted by The Man View Post
As already explained to you "elastic" and "curved" are not mutually exclusive. In fact, as already explained to you here before, in order for your 'elastic' space to stretch just linearly in one dimension, other dimension(s) (of at least a 3d space) will have to be curved. You have even previously refereed to your elastic space twisting, hence curving. By denying the curved nature of space you deny even your very own "elastic nature of space".

Again, what you need to do first is specifically define these 'elastic properties of space' in an at least self-consistent fashion. As it stands now your "elastic property of space" just doesn't agree with, well, your "elastic property of space". Again do please let us know when you can at least agree with just yourself.
He's had it as a point of confusion for a very long time. For example:

http://science27.com/gravitational-lensing/
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 03:29 PM   #1473
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,005
Exclamation Rather insane gibberish and lies about dark energy, dark matter, etc

Originally Posted by Bjarne View Post
Dark energy and dark matter....
20 November 2019 Bjarne: Rather insane gibberish and lies about dark energy, dark matter, etc.

Starts with his usual lies that given his years of writing about cosmology have become insanely ignorant.
  • We have 114 years of SR and GR being tested [b]and passing the tests [/B.
    SR and GR matching the real universe using their spacetime shows we know the nature of spacetime.
    That is textbook physics that he is now insanely ignorant about.
  • SR and GR do describe the nature of spacetime.
    That is textbook physics that he is now insanely ignorant about.
Followed by his usual deluded gibberish about "elastic" spacetime, RR, "space-tension", and whatever else he can make up doing whatever he imagines.

A part of his delusions is that GR does not have "elastic" spacetime. That is abysmal ignorance of GR where an expanding universe is spacetime expanding, i.e. being elastic !

18 November 2019 Bjarne: Deluded lies about SR, GR and QM, and a PBS video.
19 November 2018 Bjarne: Ignorant delusion that relativity has to explain everything and insane lies !

Last edited by Reality Check; 19th November 2019 at 03:40 PM.
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2019, 03:59 PM   #1474
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,005
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Been there, seen that his crank web site confirms the years of Bjarne's "incoherent ridiculous: half-brained – half-idiotic, - halfhearted, - speculation" (his words about textbook physics!) posts !

An example is his insanely ignorant "The cause of gravity, is based on the same elastic property of space" statement. Now read on his dark energy page: "Gravity (the so-called curvature of space) is caused due to that matter absorb space, thereby the elastic space structure/density is stretching towards matter."
Why is this insanely ignorant? It violates the physical facts about orbits. A satellite in a circular orbit stays at a distance r from the Earth. Now stretch space toward the Earth. That distance r changes . Say goodbye to the GPS system? Say goodbye to the astronauts on the ISS? Say goodbye to the Moon? We do not exist because the Earth's orbit was outside the habitable zone?
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 05:58 AM   #1475
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,955
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Been there, seen that his crank web site confirms the years of Bjarne's "incoherent ridiculous: half-brained – half-idiotic, - halfhearted, - speculation" (his words about textbook physics!) posts !



An example is his insanely ignorant "The cause of gravity, is based on the same elastic property of space" statement. Now read on his dark energy page: "Gravity (the so-called curvature of space) is caused due to that matter absorb space, thereby the elastic space structure/density is stretching towards matter."

Why is this insanely ignorant? It violates the physical facts about orbits. A satellite in a circular orbit stays at a distance r from the Earth. Now stretch space toward the Earth. That distance r changes . Say goodbye to the GPS system? Say goodbye to the astronauts on the ISS? Say goodbye to the Moon? We do not exist because the Earth's orbit was outside the habitable zone?


As we saw in the recent debacle over one of his equations, thinking through his theories is not one of Bjarne’s strong suits. He can’t even write equations that agree with his own ideas. I’m not surprised he can’t get his ideas to agree with observable reality.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 07:43 AM   #1476
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,362
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Been there, seen that his crank web site confirms the years of Bjarne's "incoherent ridiculous: half-brained – half-idiotic, - halfhearted, - speculation" (his words about textbook physics!) posts !

An example is his insanely ignorant "The cause of gravity, is based on the same elastic property of space" statement. Now read on his dark energy page: "Gravity (the so-called curvature of space) is caused due to that matter absorb space, thereby the elastic space structure/density is stretching towards matter."
Actually, it is possible to create a sensible structure about "elastic space", and at some point, years ago, Bjarne seemed to venture a short way down that path, but guess what? All you will have is conventional gravity and TR, ... using different words.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 11:52 AM   #1477
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,955
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Actually, it is possible to create a sensible structure about "elastic space", and at some point, years ago, Bjarne seemed to venture a short way down that path, but guess what? All you will have is conventional gravity and TR, ... using different words.



Hans


That does seem to be a core issue of his. His real issue with Relativity seems to be in the terms used. Most his efforts boil down to trying to rephrase the existing theories with his own terminology and metaphors.
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 02:23 PM   #1478
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,005
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
Actually, it is possible to create a sensible structure about "elastic space", ...
That is correct - it is should be possible for people who know about mathematics and physics to construct a "GR" where spacetime is elastic. That is not Bjarne who has displayed deep ignorance of mathematics and physics for many years! Just look at the incoherent word salad without math in his web pages.

But in the last 100 years, no one seems to have published anything about a replacement for GR where gravity comes from elastic spacetime. If there was such literature, Bjarne should have cited it. That is strong evidence that there is something so fundamentally wrong with the idea that knowledgeable people who look at it realize that it is a waste of time.

My guess is what I said about orbits previously: Bjarne has spacetime stretching between an orbiting body and its central body. That makes the distance between them increase. We will ignore that should be an infinite rate of distance increase (gravity goes to infinity as r tends to 0 for a point mass)! Orbits are unstable when Earth has been in it's present orbit for billions of years.
We also measure that orbits spiral inward as predicted by GR: Hulse–Taylor binary. Bjarne has to show that elastic spacetime has the same gravitational waves as GR.
Reality Check 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 02:42 PM   #1479
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,362
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
That does seem to be a core issue of his. His real issue with Relativity seems to be in the terms used. Most his efforts boil down to trying to rephrase the existing theories with his own terminology and metaphors.
Uhm, not quite. His basic issue with Relativity is that he doesn't understand it. He then concludes that the fault must be with Relativity. THEN he tries to explain objective facts in a way he thinks he understands. And fails.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2019, 02:48 PM   #1480
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 22,362
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
That is correct - it is should be possible for people who know about mathematics and physics to construct a "GR" where spacetime is elastic. That is not Bjarne who has displayed deep ignorance of mathematics and physics for many years! Just look at the incoherent word salad without math in his web pages.

But in the last 100 years, no one seems to have published anything about a replacement for GR where gravity comes from elastic spacetime. If there was such literature, Bjarne should have cited it. That is strong evidence that there is something so fundamentally wrong with the idea that knowledgeable people who look at it realize that it is a waste of time.

My guess is what I said about orbits previously: Bjarne has spacetime stretching between an orbiting body and its central body. That makes the distance between them increase. We will ignore that should be an infinite rate of distance increase (gravity goes to infinity as r tends to 0 for a point mass)! Orbits are unstable when Earth has been in it's present orbit for billions of years.
We also measure that orbits spiral inward as predicted by GR: Hulse–Taylor binary. Bjarne has to show that elastic spacetime has the same gravitational waves as GR.
Look: Relativity is actually quite hard to encompass. Not only is the math rather hairy in places, but parts of it is quite counter-intuitive, and little of it can be verified by simple experiments. We can't really blame people for getting it wrong.

Thermodynamics however, is much simpler, quite intuitive, and can be verified on the kitchen level. But if you try to follow Bjarne's musings, he doesn't even get THAT right.

Hans
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills.
MRC_Hans 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 02:03 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.