Theory that challenges Einstein's physics could soon be put to the test

Theory that challenges Einstein's physics could soon be put to the test
Credit: Imperial College London

Scientists behind a theory that the speed of light is variable - and not constant as Einstein suggested - have made a prediction that could be tested.

Einstein observed that the of remains the same in any situation, and this meant that space and time could be different in different situations.

The assumption that the speed of light is constant, and always has been, underpins many theories in physics, such as Einstein's theory of general relativity. In particular, it plays a role in models of what happened in the very , seconds after the Big Bang.

But some researchers have suggested that the speed of light could have been much higher in this early universe. Now, one of this theory's originators, Professor João Magueijo from Imperial College London, working with Dr Niayesh Afshordi at the Perimeter Institute in Canada, has made a prediction that could be used to test the theory's validity.

Structures in the universe, for example galaxies, all formed from fluctuations in the early universe – tiny differences in density from one region to another. A record of these early fluctuations is imprinted on the – a map of the oldest light in the universe – in the form of a 'spectral index'.

Working with their theory that the fluctuations were influenced by a varying speed of light in the early universe, Professor Magueijo and Dr Afshordi have now used a model to put an exact figure on the spectral index. The predicted figure and the model it is based on are published in the journal Physical Review D.

Cosmologists are currently getting ever more precise readings of this figure, so that prediction could soon be tested – either confirming or ruling out the team's model of the early universe. Their figure is a very precise 0.96478. This is close to the current estimate of readings of the cosmic microwave background, which puts it around 0.968, with some margin of error.

RADICAL IDEA

Professor Magueijo said: "The theory, which we first proposed in the late-1990s, has now reached a maturity point – it has produced a testable prediction. If observations in the near future do find this number to be accurate, it could lead to a modification of Einstein's theory of gravity.

"The idea that the speed of light could be variable was radical when first proposed, but with a numerical prediction, it becomes something physicists can actually test. If true, it would mean that the laws of nature were not always the same as they are today."

The testability of the varying speed of light theory sets it apart from the more mainstream rival theory: inflation. Inflation says that the early universe went through an extremely rapid expansion phase, much faster than the current rate of expansion of the universe.

THE HORIZON PROBLEM

These theories are necessary to overcome what physicists call the 'horizon problem'. The universe as we see it today appears to be everywhere broadly the same, for example it has a relatively homogenous density.

This could only be true if all regions of the universe were able to influence each other. However, if the speed of light has always been the same, then not enough time has passed for light to have travelled to the edge of the universe, and 'even out' the energy.

As an analogy, to heat up a room evenly, the warm air from radiators at either end has to travel across the room and mix fully. The problem for the universe is that the 'room' – the observed size of the universe – appears to be too large for this to have happened in the time since it was formed.

The varying speed of light theory suggests that the speed of light was much higher in the early universe, allowing the distant edges to be connected as the universe expanded. The speed of light would have then dropped in a predictable way as the density of the universe changed. This variability led the team to the prediction published today.

The alternative is inflation, which attempts to solve this problem by saying that the very early universe evened out while incredibly small, and then suddenly expanded, with the uniformity already imprinted on it. While this means the speed of light and the other laws of physics as we know them are preserved, it requires the invention of an 'inflation field' – a set of conditions that only existed at the time.

'Critical geometry of a thermal ' by Niayesh Afshordi and João Magueijo is published in Physical Review D.


Explore further

Theory redraws formation of early universe

More information: Niayesh Afshordi et al. Critical geometry of a thermal big bang, Physical Review D (2016). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.101301
Journal information: Physical Review D

Citation: Theory that challenges Einstein's physics could soon be put to the test (2016, November 25) retrieved 18 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-11-theory-einstein-physics.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
9930 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 25, 2016
There is a simple explanation to the 'horizon problem', the BB never happened and the universe is infinite in size and age and recycles itself as far as we can be determined at this time. That could be why the universe appears nearly the same in every direction.

Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
Einstein's relativity is invalid from the get go: timeisabsolute.org No experiments at all are needed to know that.

Nov 25, 2016
You can't do physics without experiment.

Nov 25, 2016
You can't do physics without experiment.


That's wrong. If a ``theory'', such as Einstein's relativity, derives in effect that 1 = 2, you must know that there's no experiment that would validate such derivation. Therefore, Einstein's relativity must be removed from physics before wasting time and money to set up experiments aimed at validating it.

Nov 25, 2016
1. Nothing can travel at the speed of light.
2. Speed of light in "vacuum" is 'c' (constant).
3. If we move faster than c, then we would feel time slower than how we would feel when we travel with velocity c in vacuum.
Where is the fallacy in Einstein's theory then?

Nov 25, 2016
The comic backround could actually be multi trillions of years old and are signatures of multible universe's of Hydrogen atom based constructions surrounding our construction which is newer in time.

Nov 25, 2016
1. Nothing can travel at the speed of light.
2. Speed of light in "vacuum" is 'c' (constant).
3. If we move faster than c, then we would feel time slower than how we would feel when we travel with velocity c in vacuum.
Where is the fallacy in Einstein's theory then?


The fallacy of Einstein's relativity is that it contradicts absolute truths such as the absolute truth that 1 is not equal to 2: timeisabsolute.org

Nov 25, 2016
Einstein's relativity is invalid from the get go: timeisabsolute.org No experiments at all are needed to know that.


Then off you go, and design a GPS system that doesn't correct for relativity. Get back to us when you've done it. Let us know which airplanes you've installed it on, so that the rest of us can avoid them.

http://www.astron...gps.html

Nov 25, 2016
timeisabsolute.org


= Crankery. Something peer reviewed would be better than some random nonsense cobbled together on a website. Any idiot can do that.

Nov 25, 2016
timeisabsolute.org


= Crankery. Something peer reviewed would be better than some random nonsense cobbled together on a website. Any idiot can do that.


Curiosity got the better of me and, like a train wreck, I had to check out that quackery. It seems to eventually make its way to some professor named Vesselin C. Noninski. He has a YouTube channel. Prepare to be entertained! (But not educated).

The only credentials I could find for professor Noninski were to something called the Sophia Institute in NY which is some sort of religious institution.

Nov 25, 2016
Yes, the speed of light can change not only relative to a reference frame but also with the change of the properties of its medium ether, just like sound, as proved on the paper "Challenge to the special theory of relativity" March 1 2016 Physics Essays which has disproved special relativity both theoretically and experimentally. The most well-known evidence is the absolute time shown by the universally synchronized clocks on the GPS satellites moving at huge velocities relative to each other, while special relativity claims that time is relative and can never be synchronized on clocks moving at different velocities.

Nov 25, 2016
timeisabsolute.org


= Crankery. Something peer reviewed would be better than some random nonsense cobbled together on a website. Any idiot can do that.


Really. Come to timeisabsolute.org and show where it's ``random nonsense cobbled together''. If you can't show, you must apologize, to say the least.

Nov 25, 2016
Einstein's relativity is invalid from the get go: timeisabsolute.org No experiments at all are needed to know that.


Then off you go, and design a GPS system that doesn't correct for relativity. Get back to us when you've done it. Let us know which airplanes you've installed it on, so that the rest of us can avoid them.

http://www.astron...gps.html


This would be a waste of my time, effort and money. You may take a look at https://youtu.be/ga02FDprYjM where it's clearly explained why GPS satellites cannot prove Einstein's relativity Or, better yet, read timeisabsolute.org and try to understand why Einstein's relativity is invalid and must be removed from physics.

Nov 25, 2016
timeisabsolute.org


= Crankery. Something peer reviewed would be better than some random nonsense cobbled together on a website. Any idiot can do that.


Curiosity got the better of me and, like a train wreck, I had to check out that quackery. It seems to eventually make its way to some professor named Vesselin C. Noninski. He has a YouTube channel. Prepare to be entertained! (But not educated).

The only credentials I could find for professor Noninski were to something called the Sophia Institute in NY which is some sort of religious institution.


Doxxing won't do it. You must know science, then read carefully timeisabsolute.org and come here with valid scientific arguments, not doxxing around internet trying to sidetrack your obligation to come up w/ real scientific arguments, if you're dead-set on criticizing.


Nov 25, 2016
If we move faster than c, then we would feel time slower than how we would feel when we travel with velocity c in vacuum.

Just a niggle: Your subjective time (they way you 'feel' time) is always at the same speed - no matter how fast you travel (e.g. according to Einstein you measure the speed of light as c no matter in what - non accelerated - reference frame you are). But you experience *other* stuff is affected.

Nov 25, 2016
@omnibus,
I gave you a scientific argument, you loon. The best you can come up with is a crank website and a bloody youtube video! Tell me, who is doing the peer review at youtube these days?
As I said, any idiot (as proven) can put together a crank website, or make a youtube video to convince the more gullible and scientifically illiterate members of society. There are all sorts of cranks doing it. Your lot are no different.

Nov 25, 2016
@omnibus,
I gave you a scientific argument, you loon. The best you can come up with is a crank website and a bloody youtube video! Tell me, who is doing the peer review at youtube these days?
As I said, any idiot (as proven) can put together a crank website, or make a youtube video to convince the more gullible and scientifically illiterate members of society. There are all sorts of cranks doing it. Your lot are no different.


I will report you to the moderator for ad hominem attack. You're supposed to give scientific arguments and not offend the opponent.

Nov 25, 2016
The speed of light is constrained in our space-time continuum but not necessarily where the forces we experience in our galactic space are virtually non-existent. Consider the vast emptiness between galaxies. In that locale the forces of gravity are no longer local and strong. Even dark matter/energy does not exist everywhere in those empty regions. The constraint in our galactic continuum is gravity's effect on time, which changes the light's direction and speed where gravity is strong enough (large star like our sun). In a gravity well, an observer measures light speed and gets "c". Outside the gravity well another observer measures and gets "c". The rate of time passage is different for each observer, so while each observer gets "c", the relatives values of each gravitational/time field render "c" different in an absolute sense but the same to each observer. The frequency shift each observer sees from the other observer's test light beam is the absolute variation.

Nov 25, 2016
............as *proved* on the paper "Challenge to the special theory of relativity" March 1 2016 Physics Essays which has disproved special relativity both theoretically and experimentally.


No, as *claimed* by the author of that paper (cited by nobody). If it had *proved* STR wrong, it would have been front page news. As it stands, nobody has taken it seriously enough to even cite it.


Nov 25, 2016
@omnibus,
I gave you a scientific argument, you loon. The best you can come up with is a crank website and a bloody youtube video! Tell me, who is doing the peer review at youtube these days?
As I said, any idiot (as proven) can put together a crank website, or make a youtube video to convince the more gullible and scientifically illiterate members of society. There are all sorts of cranks doing it. Your lot are no different.


I will report you to the moderator for ad hominem attack. You're supposed to give scientific arguments and not offend the opponent.


Awww, diddums. And I gave you a scientific argument. And all you have in return is crank science websites and youtube.

Nov 25, 2016
............as *proved* on the paper "Challenge to the special theory of relativity" March 1 2016 Physics Essays which has disproved special relativity both theoretically and experimentally.


No, as *claimed* by the author of that paper (cited by nobody). If it had *proved* STR wrong, it would have been front page news. As it stands, nobody has taken it seriously enough to even cite it.



That's not an argument either. The fact that no one has taken it seriously enough is not a scientific proof for the invalidity of Einstein's relativity. You try to sidetrack you obligation to present a scientific argument by relegating this task to others. That shows that you yourself have no argument. So, then, it would be prodent to remove yourself from this exchange because you're just wasting everybody's time.

Nov 25, 2016
@omnibus,
I gave you a scientific argument, you loon. The best you can come up with is a crank website and a bloody youtube video! Tell me, who is doing the peer review at youtube these days?
As I said, any idiot (as proven) can put together a crank website, or make a youtube video to convince the more gullible and scientifically illiterate members of society. There are all sorts of cranks doing it. Your lot are no different.


I will report you to the moderator for ad hominem attack. You're supposed to give scientific arguments and not offend the opponent.


Awww, diddums. And I gave you a scientific argument. And all you have in return is crank science websites and youtube.


No, you did not give me a scientific argument. Gibberish and ad hominem attacks are not a scientific argument.

Nov 25, 2016
@omnibus,
I gave you a scientific argument, you loon. The best you can come up with is a crank website and a bloody youtube video! Tell me, who is doing the peer review at youtube these days?
As I said, any idiot (as proven) can put together a crank website, or make a youtube video to convince the more gullible and scientifically illiterate members of society. There are all sorts of cranks doing it. Your lot are no different.


So obviously you don't have a scientific argument. Be careful about what you so cavalierly say and who you
say these things to. The author of timeisabsolute.org as well as the video in question has the highest scientific credentials possible, obtained with record breaking highest averages. So "cut the crap" and get serious about science.

Nov 25, 2016
You can't do physics without experiment.


That's wrong. If a ``theory'', such as Einstein's relativity, derives in effect that 1 = 2,

Indeed, you could still work on theories that are not even wrong.


Indeed, Einstein's relativity is not even wrong. It's travesty of science.

Nov 25, 2016
In fact, there are questions about "relativity". There still seem to be seasonal difference sin the Michelson-Morley Experiment that those who concoct "official stories" don't want to touch. And, frankly, note the "scientific" imbecility of pointing to GPS devices as "proof" "relativity" works. No one who insist on that has ever taken their GPS apart to see if it really does use "relativistic" equations! They are claiming something without knowing it's true! And pointing to what the "news' would report is affected by the fact that all "news" is a lie.
It should be mentioned, homogeneity does not necessarily need contact. Operating under the same physical laws, two different parts of the universe supposedly will tend toward the same state. Or is there a signal faster than light that ensures that a million dice rolled simultaneously everywhere will come to the same average value just about always?

Nov 25, 2016
Nice to see a testable theory. We will learn something whether or not the theory is verified.

I must admit to not comprehending why the horizon problem is a problem. Why must disparate parts of the universe be able to exchange information to account for the uniformity? Isn't it enough that they are following the same laws of physics? Wouldn't that be enough to account for the uniformity?

Nov 25, 2016
@Pax2016

So obviously you don't have a scientific argument. Be careful about what you so cavalierly say and who you
say these things to. The author of timeisabsolute.org as well as the video in question has the highest scientific credentials possible, obtained with record breaking highest averages. So "cut the crap" and get serious about science.

I see you just joined, perhaps 5 minutes ago to help Omnibus101 push pseudoscience against the guidelines, which unfortunately are not enforced.
Are you twins?


Pseudoscience is Einstein's relativity, as seen in timeisabsolute.org

Nov 25, 2016
Nice to see a testable theory. We will learn something whether or not the theory is verified.

I must admit to not comprehending why the horizon problem is a problem. Why must disparate parts of the universe be able to exchange information to account for the uniformity? Isn't it enough that they are following the same laws of physics? Wouldn't that be enough to account for the uniformity?


Not at all. Einstein's relativity is not only not testable but it isn't even wrong. It's a travesty of science: cf. timeisabsolute.org

Nov 25, 2016
@omnibus
I will report you to the moderator for ad hominem attack. You're supposed to give scientific arguments and not offend the opponent.

If there was moderation your posts would be deleted on account of the "Keep Science" guideline.
See http://phys.org/help/comments/ .

e the contrary. Your posts will be deleted on account of as hominem attacks.

Nov 25, 2016
1. Nothing can travel at the speed of light.
2. Speed of light in "vacuum" is 'c' (constant). ...


The fallacy of Einstein's relativity is

You failed notice the contradiction between statements 1 and 2. That qualifies you for research on theories that are not even wrong.
that it contradicts absolute truths such as the absolute truth that 1 is not equal to 2: timeisabsolute.org

Only because of the definitions of "1" and "2".
There is no absolute truth in contradictions.


On the contrary, there is absolute truth. An absolute truth, for instance, is the fact that one body in one system cannot obey two different laws of motion simultaneously, as Einstein derives. Just because of this derived nonsense Einstein's relativity must go without any attempt whatsoever to verify experimentally such senselessness.

Nov 25, 2016
Phys.org, could you remove these jokers?


Your posts must be removed because, aside from bad manners, they prove your incompetence to participate in the discussion at hand.

Nov 25, 2016
@Omnibus101
You have the right to be wrong.
Just don't litter this place with your mistakes.
Thanks.


Where are my mistakes? Show them. Come to timeisabsolute.org and show the mistakes.

If you can't you should be the one to stop littering this place and should apologize.

Nov 25, 2016
@Omnibus101
You have the right to be wrong.
Just don't litter this place with your mistakes.
Thanks.


Where are my mistakes? Show them.

Everything you posted here is wrong.

If you can't you should be the one to stop littering this place

Don't echo my statements. It is less than impressive to copy someone else.
and should apologize.

Are you insulted if someone tells you that you are wrong?
You should be thankful instead.


Post on timeisabsolute.org where exactly is the error. If you can't (and you obviously can't) please apologize.

Nov 25, 2016
Phys.org, could you remove these jokers?


Your posts must be removed because, aside from bad manners, they prove your incompetence to participate in the discussion at hand.

You make statements that are in contradiction with the full body of 111 years of physics. You must be joking, or extremely foolish.
Now which one do you prefer ?
I offer you a way out and save your face.
Thank me. :)


Full body of almost 2000 years of physics has been contradicted by Copernicus heliocentricism. 111 years are negligible in comparison. You should address the argument itself and not try to come up with funny arguments aimed at concealing your incompetence. You're incompetent and that shows badly in this exchange. What nerve!

Nov 25, 2016
Why are you so bent on questioning my competence?


Why not? After all you are just another one of the headcases living here on this site, who in defiance of application of the Inverse Square Law, has stated that an Infinite Gravity Well can exist at the center of a stellar mass dubbed Black Hole creating a condition of Infinite Density at it's center.

Until I pointed it out to you, & a few other of your aficionados living here, you did not know that the force of gravity of a stellar mass is calculated from it's surface, not from it's center where it is readily calculable to be ZERO.

Nov 25, 2016
@JP
They are claiming something without knowing it's true!

That is what you and your constituency do all the time.
In the mean time, you seem to not understand physics.
Want an education? Start with this page of a real professor.
http://www.astron...gps.html


Can I get another glass of that Kool-Aid?

Why no discussion about the variation / delay caused by sat positioning changes along with the time it takes the signal to reach earth.

These variations are much larger than any supposed relativity related errors.

Personally, I don't feel general/special relativity has been around long enough to consider it gospel.


Nov 25, 2016
You say that the full body of physics developed since 1905 is negligible compared to the full body of physics of before 1500. That is at least as wrong and foolish as anything you have said so far. I am telling you like it is, so don't get all emotional again.
It appears things are only getting worse with you.
Change your nick and start over :) .


Change my nick? Are you kiddin' me? You should change your nick to avoid further embarrassment. The years of persistence of a wrong theory cannot trump in any way the legitimate (as in the case at hand) arguments against it. You've got to get some science training, to understand how science works, before coming here to argue.

Nov 25, 2016
@JP
They are claiming something without knowing it's true!

That is what you and your constituency do all the time.
In the mean time, you seem to not understand physics.
Want an education? Start with this page of a real professor.
http://www.astron...gps.html


Can I get another glass of that Kool-Aid?

Why no discussion about the variation / delay caused by sat positioning changes along with the time it takes the signal to reach earth.

These variations are much larger than any supposed relativity related errors.

Personally, I don't feel general/special relativity has been around long enough to consider it gospel.



Exactly. The finite velocity of the signals is the culprit for the GPS corrections.

Nov 25, 2016
Why no discussion about the variation / delay caused by sat positioning changes along with the time it takes the signal to reach earth.


Jesus H. Christ. Yes, these scientists and engineers are so stupid, that they didn't bother to figure out that there would be a time delay in the signal from the satellite due to distance! It is ALL accounted for. Without the changes factored in for relativity, your GPS would be out by a considerable distance very shortly. Not because the bloody satellite is a few hundred kilometres above the Earth. When they send a command to Cassini, do you think they all sit around dumbfounded that they aren't getting an instant reply?

Cranks, bloody place is full of them!

Nov 25, 2016
Oh brother! When will the Young Earth crowd start running with this???

Nov 25, 2016
Your inverse square law, which is contradicted by Mercury's perihelion advance, is the solution of Poisson's equation with a singularity at the origin. Also, all I have stated and state again is that BHs are a consequence of GRT,


......and everytime I challenge you to post the relevant section of General Relativity that BHs are a consequence of GRT, you run & hide. The fact of the matter is that there is no such evidence in GR & you can't prove differently, which if you could you would have already done it long ago in the past, instead you simply retrace your usual fallback position of going foul mouth with blizzards of profanity doing a zany Zwicky imitation.

Nov 25, 2016
Pseudoscience is Einstein's relativity, as seen in timeisabsolute.org


A crank website, authored by someone totally anonymous. As such it is worthless, just like the large preponderance of other pseudoscientific rubbish floating around the web.

Nov 25, 2016
http://www.gps.go...200C.pdf

That is a link to the (160 page) GPS Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200C (10 Oct 1993).
For anybody that cares to read it. Use your PDF search function to look for 'relativistic'. Strange how they factored that stuff in, and it is so damn accurate.

Nov 25, 2016
......and everytime I challenge you to post the relevant section of General Relativity that BHs are a consequence of GRT, you run & hide.


Did I ? Every time I patiently gave you the Schwarzschild papers, about which your saint or perhaps, god, Einstein was enthousiastic because they proved his theory correct.
... and Schwarzschild's Black Hole Math does not appear in GR & you can't prove differently.

The fact of the matter is that there is no such evidence in GR & you can't prove differently,


I don't have to. The proof was given in January 1916
......you are really this old?

.
which if you could you would have already done it long ago in the past, instead you simply retrace your usual fallback position of going foul mouth with blizzards of profanity doing a zany Zwicky imitation.

Kneel for Zwicky, you roach.


.....and the Zany Zwicky Syndrome surfaces yet again.


Nov 25, 2016
Pseudoscience is Einstein's relativity, as seen in timeisabsolute.org


A crank website, authored by someone totally anonymous. As such it is worthless, just like the large preponderance of other pseudoscientific rubbish floating around the web.


So, it's not the argument itself but who and where it's published matters? Have you no decency? By the way, there is nowhere in the net or anywhere else for that matter, an argument so succinct and definitive, unequivocally proving the invalidity of Einstein's relativity, as in timeisabsolute.org.

Nov 25, 2016
Have you no decency?

... obviously wrong.


You're not kidding. Anybody may blabber like you.

Nov 25, 2016
http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/ICD-GPS-200C.pdf

That is a link to the (160 page) GPS Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200C (10 Oct 1993).
For anybody that cares to read it. Use your PDF search function to look for 'relativistic'. Strange how they factored that stuff in, and it is so damn accurate.


Absolutely out of the question. See why: https://youtu.be/ga02FDprYjM GPS corrections are trivially attributed to the final velocity of the signals.

Nov 25, 2016
I don't have to. The proof was given in January 1916


.....you are really this old?
.......I mean that you were even at that time writing Commentary about presumed content of General Relativity?

Are you then totally unaware of Schwarzschild's papers?
Right......Black Hole Math, infinitely dense singularities created by Infinite Wells of Gravity, totally contrary to Einstein's GR & you still can't prove differently by anything you can quote from the text of General Relativity......of course you need to read it first.

All you showed here was the same quote over and over again, without reference.
.....yep that's what you do, make up a pseudo-science narrative & challenge naysayers to prove it's wrong.

You can't hide from me Benni. I see the true little psycho that you are.
...the Zany Zwicky Syndrome surfacing yet again.


Nov 25, 2016
By the way, there is nowhere in the net or anywhere else for that matter, an argument so succinct and definitive, unequivocally proving the invalidity of Einstein's relativity, as in timeisabsolute.org.


Yep, anonymous pages on the web is where all the best science is! If the author had anything to say, he'd have it in a respectable, high impact physics journal, and shortly thereafter it'd be on the front page of every newspaper in the world. This would then be followed by the arrival of free tickets to Stockholm.
Like I said, it's worthless.

On the other hand, a father and his 3 kids can take a short mountain holiday, and in the process confirm the predictions of GR wrt positive time dilation: http://www.leapse...eat2005/
Now, that is a thoroughly worthwhile webpage, and the author isn't anonymous.

Nov 25, 2016
Absolutely out of the question. See why: https://youtu.be/ga02FDprYjM GPS corrections are trivially attributed to the final velocity of the signals.


Lol. Argumentum ad Youtubem. The hangout of all the top cranks. It'd be interesting to understand the psychology of these people. What is it they are trying to achieve? They must realise that nobody who matters is taking the slightest bit of notice.
Scientists have enough to do just keeping up with the real science being published in their field. They sure as hell aren't going to be scouring various crank science sites and bloody youtube as well!
I guess they garner a few followers, and that makes them feel good about themselves. Or they try to flog you stuff, like EU.


Nov 25, 2016
a father and his 3 kids can take a short mountain holiday, and in the process confirm the predictions of GR wrt positive time dilation: http://www.leapse...eat2005/
Now, that is a thoroughly worthwhile webpage, and the author isn't anonymous.


So why not continue following your reasoning & apply that to anything else for which claims are made attributing something to Special or General Relativity. Examine the claim Phys1 makes that:

"BHs are a consequence of GRT"


Is there a mountaintop up to which you can hike to the peak that will prove such a claim?


Nov 25, 2016
Einstein's SR and GR theories? For heavens sake, they are only a best-we-can-do model, not reality. They serve their purpose, and any "improvement" does not invalidate them as they have proved adequate for our use many times.
By the way, Fizzwun, you should pick on somebody your own size, and stop goading the afflicted. Good job Benni is here to prick your ego.....

Nov 25, 2016
Is there a mountaintop up to which you can hike to the peak that will prove such a claim?


Where was I talking about black holes? You're obsessed. Write it up, or give it up. I, for one, am sick of having to read it on here. You're proving nothing. Nobody is listening.

Nov 25, 2016
Absolutely out of the question. See why: https://youtu.be/ga02FDprYjM GPS corrections are trivially attributed to the final velocity of the signals.


Lol. Argumentum ad Youtubem. The hangout of all the top cranks. It'd be interesting to understand the psychology of these people. What is it they are trying to achieve? They must realise that nobody who matters is taking the slightest bit of notice.
Scientists have enough to do just keeping up with the real science being published in their field. They sure as hell aren't going to be scouring various crank science sites and bloody youtube as well!
I guess they garner a few followers, and that makes them feel good about themselves. Or they try to flog you stuff, like EU.


Complete nonsense. Not worth replying to it.

Nov 25, 2016
Complete nonsense. Not worth replying to it.


Truth hurts, huh?

Nov 25, 2016
It's also worth mentioning that there is another prediction the model makes: no gravitational waves produced. That helps make it "the most predictive model on offer..." having "a simple geometrical interpretation as a probe3-brane embedded in an E AdS_2 x E_3 geometry." There's a preprint on arXiv – https://arxiv.org....03312v2

Nov 25, 2016
Hi jonesdave. :)
Complete nonsense. Not worth replying to it.


Truth hurts, huh?
Some friendly advice, mate. Before taking that cheap shot at him, that does nothing for science discussion but only for your ego-tripping, please ensure your 'cheap shot' does not 'ricochet' back at you!

Because your above cheap shot can also be made against those who are at this very moment still in confusion/denial due to the truth Prof Paul Steinhardt has finally pointed out to his professional colleagues in a lecture wherein he points out "Inflation" etc always has had no supporting logical/physical 'evidence' for it. Apparently "the truth hurts" is a truism well and truly demonstrated by many 'mainstreamers' not yet ready to face the truth when it is told to them by one of their own.

So, mate, less personal barbs/cheap shots. Just stick to the science issues/points in discussion. Else you may find yourself hit in your own posterior by your own 'cheap shots'. Cheers. :)

Nov 25, 2016
@RC,
Mind your own bloody business. I was referring to his constant referencing (promoting) of an anonymous webpage, backed up by youtube videos. So I'll repeat; what is that meant to achieve? What do they get out of it? Who the hell is going to take any notice of it?
Or is that how you believe science should be carried out?

Nov 25, 2016
Is there a mountaintop up to which you can hike to the peak that will prove such a claim?


Where was I talking about black holes? You're obsessed. Write it up, or give it up. I, for one, am sick of having to read it on here. You're proving nothing. Nobody is listening.


Hey there Jonesy, you're the one talking about GPS based on General Relativity like you are an expert in it, I'm just probing you to find out how much expertise you really have as compared Phys1's persistently snarky responses. Maybe you enjoy his foul mouth?

I'm an Electrical Engineer with six years of Nuclear/Electrical Engineering education under my belt, and I like to know who I'm conversing with when I engage others in topics about science, especially SR & GR.

Nov 25, 2016
Hi jonesdave.
@RC,
Mind your own bloody business....
I would have thought that objectivity, fairness, politeness and science discussion of the science issue at hand was the 'business' of all impartial observers/commenters. That is what this forum is for. Anything less is mere social media twaddling and trolling. Even if one does not agree with the points/arguments posted, the disagreement/discussion should be constrained to actual science/logics points posted; not irrelevant personal/source disparagement, which has no part in truly objective/courteous on-substantive-point discussions in science/logics.

So, re your 'truth hurts' angle, have you viewed/understood all of Prof Paul Steinhardt's lecture to his colleagues (linked previously/elsewhere)? Does that truth pointed out by Prof Steinhardt re "Inflation" etc have any effect on your attitude/certainty (or, in your own words: does "the truth hurts" in your case)?

Anyhow, take it easy; be less 'personal', hey? :)

Nov 25, 2016
As an analogy, to heat up a room evenly, the warm air from radiators at either end has to travel across the room and mix fully. The problem for the universe is that the 'room' – the observed size of the universe – appears to be too large for this to have happened in the time since it was formed.


........what a totally laughable conclusion. How do these researchers know this? If they'd study Section 3 of General Relativity & learn a few things about Entropy that I learned in Thermodynamics courses in Engineering School, they'd sure eat those words in a hurry.

How many here know what's in Section 3 of General Relativity?


Nov 25, 2016
Complete nonsense. Not worth replying to it.


Truth hurts, huh?


Nonsense.

Nov 25, 2016
@RC,
Who the hell was referring to Paul whatsisname? I was referring purely to the silly claims of a poster, that time dilation due to SR/ GR was false. And his constant promoting of a webpage. It has been shown beyond doubt to be true. I am not getting into a long winded argument about anything else, as with Benni's black hole obsession.

@Benni,
Not that it's anyone's business, but I have a BSc (Hons) Astronomy. Mostly planetary science.

As I'm sure I've mentioned before, if you want to go on about your current obsession, why not link us to something where this is clearly spelled out? Is it your idea? If not, then link us to whoever is saying this.
And this place is not conducive to this sort of debate. Try ISF. Plenty of physicists and mathematicians there who would be happy to debate your contentions with you: http://www.intern...cs+black
Resurrect that thread, and debate it there.

Nov 25, 2016
How many here know what's in Section 3 of General Relativity? Well Jonsey, for your edification I've copied a small portion of the text below:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97

If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1) between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.

Hey Jonesy, no better link than copying it directly from the text of GR.

Nov 25, 2016
Hi Benni. :)

That 'problem' they mention (in your quote from above PO article) only ever 'arose' because of Big Bang scenarios.

Infinite, Eternal locally/regionally 'energy-matter recycling' universe scenario has no such 'problem'.

For, as some observers have already pointed out, every locality/region is evolving according to the SAME physical laws, irrespective of location/region EPOCH.

Differences in 'present stage' states/distributions can arise from place to place/time to time due to 'evolutionary stage-related' quantum/chaos fluctuations producing slightly different 'evolutionary trajectories/states' resulting over time in any particular affected localities/regions phenomena. But overall, the differences average out and the recycling processes 'rehash' major differences, so 'smoothing out' major large scale anisotropy.

PS: Benni, the above in addition/complement to your point re thermodynamics/entropy, no matter scale of energy-space 'feature' under study. :)


Nov 25, 2016
Hi jonesdave. :)

I was only curious about your attitude to Steinhardt's lecture which pointed out the truth about "Inflation" being bogus all along. That curiosity, about your own 'attitude' to truth, was triggered by your "the truth hurts" cheap shot to that poster.

In any case, I am interested in everyone's comments/re-evaluations of their own prior stances after Steinhardt (finally) telling his colleagues the truth about such longstanding furphy as "inflation" etc which has infected the cosmology literature/claims/mentality for far too many decades now.

It is even more intriguing that all the mainstreamers here are strangely 'silent'; 'volunteering' no commentary on that truth-telling by Steinhardt; but remain reluctant unless prompted; why is that?

Anyhow, that is why I am taking every opportunity to ask everyone what their comment is on that truth finally told by 'one of your own', as it were. What is your comment on that, mate? :)

Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
That 'problem' they mention (in your quote from above PO article) only ever 'arose' because of Big Bang scenarios.


Yeah I know, I just get such a chuckle out of their efforts when TESTABLE science flies straight into the face of their laughable narratives.

Infinite, Eternal locally/regionally 'energy-matter recycling' universe scenario has no such 'problem'.
.....seems that way to me as well, but I haven't been alive forever to be witness to it.

the differences average out and the recycling processes 'rehash' major differences, so 'smoothing out' major large scale anisotropy.
......I prefer to view the "smoothing out" as the random nature energy distributes itself throughout whatever borders it's being confined in, alias Entropy.


Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
Hey Jonesy, no better link than copying it directly from the text of GR.


I couldn't give a tupenny ****.! I wasn't talking about black holes. You were. I have no interest in discussing it. As I said, there are far more appropriate places to discuss it. As I linked you to. If your maths is up to it, go discuss it there.
http://www.intern...cs+black

Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
We will probably find light is as malleable. Since space is not empty, a spatial density is everywhere present and everywhere variable due to many constants, particles, fields, various flavors of photons, all will yield a different value to the terminal velocity of light. It could well be down to a multi-degree, multivariable, partial differential equation with almost infinite unknowns integrated by parts on an infinitely small quantum volume of many principle quantum numbers each governed by its own laws resulting perhaps in a non-discontuous rational function or maybe not or maybe even imaginary number functions. Resultant will be a nightmarishly large type of Fermi-Dirac coordinate vector partial differential equation set of many many equations in order to have a prayer of solution, and that only possible by a truly huge computer. The result if attainable will be a statistical marais of terminal light velocities whose mean will be about the normalized percieved speed of light.

Nov 25, 2016
If we move faster than c, then we would feel time slower than how we would feel when we travel with velocity c in vacuum.

Just a niggle: Your subjective time (they way you 'feel' time) is always at the same speed - no matter how fast you travel (e.g. according to Einstein you measure the speed of light as c no matter in what - non accelerated - reference frame you are). But you experience *other* stuff is affected.

Yes. Exactly.
But c is not the fastest speed achieved by light if there are other mediums "emptier" than vacuum that would have probably surrounded the universe seconds after big bang.

Nov 25, 2016
It also means that the mysterious dark matter does not really exist. It could likely mean that so called dark matter is only dimensional anomalies causing the gravitational fluctuations to bleed over into our dimension. The anomalies due to the differences in the speed of light in the next diminution to bleed through. Which is infinitely more plausible than some invisible bulk of matter. E= mc^2 could be some other number which does change things. It could also mean Osiris1 that time is not constant either.

Nov 25, 2016
"Einstein observed that the speed of light remains the same in any situation, and this meant that space and time could be different in different situations."

He thought that since gravity curves the path of light, spacetime must be curved similarly. The path of light is changed by a different refractive index, meaning a medium, in this case spacetime, of different density. Yes spacetime density is reduced by gravity. So space differs in density, but I don't see how the speed of light remains constant in a different medium. As a matter of fact in a black hole there may be a singularity - a singularity in spacetime density. Matter could fold up and expel spacetime completely at the singularity. It's all because of spacetime expansion but not matter. Matter just gets the squeeze. The thicker your lenses, the more curvature in the path of light. But the medium may not be curved. It just has a different density or refractive index.

Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
cont
Look at it this way - the less spacetime there is in any given volume the harder light has to work to get through that volume. Spacetime is like the propagator. The less of it you have the less propagation and the speed of light decreases.

Nov 25, 2016
The variable speed of light at the extreme distance scales follows directly from expanding universe model.
So...redshift. Exactly as observed. Consequently in the early U the speed of light would have been blue shifted - much faster - so communication would have been much faster and the early U would have been more uniform. Or so it seems.

Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
The variable speed of light at the extreme distance scales follows directly from expanding universe model. In this model our space-time expands uniformly
I think this would also apply in the accelerating expansion model. It would seem like in an expanding model the amount of space available for expansion would increase with expansion leading to exponential expansion. So the accelerated expansion should be no surprise. In fact I think there may be some interplay with temperature going on here so eventually when the U cools sufficiently the expansion stops and we avoid the situation where we eventually just get blown away. As a matter of fact as the temperature approaches zero we may experience a phase change as some people have been talking about and we could just collapse. But I don't think this will happen for some time as we haven't yet produced any temperatures that close to zero and observed any phase change in spacetime to my knowledge.

Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
...the increasing light speed can be explained with tired light model of Hubble red shift quite naturally. In this model the space-time doesn't expand, but the light is gradually losing its energy by scattering with quantum fluctuations of vacuum.
You're the first person I know of to attribute the tired light model to Hubble.

Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
The variable speed of light at the extreme distance scales follows directly from expanding universe model. So...redshift. Exactly as observed.
Nope, you have it opposite: the expanding universe model has been implied from redshift.
Right. Thought that was what I said. Sorry.

Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
Please note, that the dark energy is the dual analogy of dark matter around black holes, which makes the space-time around them more curved.
Sorry I can't wrap my mind around curved spacetime. Just because the light path curves when it passes through a different medium doesn't mean the medium is curved.

Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
Einstein also didn't believe to space-time, black holes and gravitational waves, which are attributed to him...
Doesn't seem fair.

Nov 25, 2016
This is very nonrelativistic attitude indeed: according to relativity the path of light is always straight - instead of it, it's the space-time what gets only curved here. It just illustrates, how deeply the contemporary physicists are confused by interpretations of their own theories.
Not only the physicists but the kids in our schools. Sad. Does the light through your glasses bend because of curvature of the lenses or the density of the medium?

Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
Therefore, according to general relativity therefore the relativistic aberration and gravitational lensing should be never observable
I didn't know that either. Surprise.

Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
Without (existence of) gravitational lenses the general relativity would have nothing to predict -
I'm not sure what gravitational lensing has to do with clock frequency as a function of gravity.

Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
After all, the strictly local ("pin-point") perspective is abstract concept in the same way, like the flat space-time.
I never could relate to flat spacetime. The idea is that light goes in a straight line on the average in every direction of spacetime. So spacetime is not curved on the average. So if it's not curved it must be flat. I do think you could say the density of spacetime is uniform in every direction of spacetime on the average..

Nov 25, 2016
Hey Socker2, have you ever chatted with a guy named Zephir? His comments, thoughts and views are plastered from one end of the Internet to the other.

Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2016
...it enables us to decide, whether the dark matter should be interpreted as a field or as a system of particles.
Simple. Neither one. Dark matter is a change in the refractive index of spacetime or its density.

Nov 25, 2016
Hey Socker2, have you ever chatted with a guy named Zephir? His comments, thoughts and views are plastered from one end of the Internet to the other.
He's been writing about AWT or whatever it is for at least 40 years or so it seems. Maybe he's trying to sell books. Sock it to 'em.!

Nov 25, 2016
Not that it's anyone's business, but I have a BSc (Hons) Astronomy.
I knew it, didn't fool me, the superior level of intelligence, the thorough grasp of the subject matter and proper articulation of the terms all pretty much gave it away.
Mostly planetary science.
This explains why your comments on the Rosetta mission were so knowledgeable.

On behalf of the group "People For Just a Sane America Once and For All, Damnit Jim" your every effort is sincerely and deeply appreciated.

Nov 25, 2016
The idea is that light goes in a straight line on the average in every direction of spacetime.
Yes, but this line remains straight only from 4D persecutive of space-time, i.e. the geodesics. From lower-dimensional 3D perspective of us, human creatures such a straight geodesics could still look curved.
The path of light cannot be tracked in 3 dimensions. You could plot 1 point but in 3 dimensions that's it.

Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 26, 2016
Simple. Neither one. Dark matter is a change in the refractive index of spacetime or its density
While the small fluctuations behave gravitationally and they form spherical atmosphere AROUND galaxies, these larger ones ("cold" dark matter) have antigravity behavior and they fill the filaments BETWEEN galaxies.
Filaments between galaxies are regions of stretched spacetime having less density and thus appearing as it would if there were matter there to reduce its density.
No formal theory can describe all kinds of dark matter at the same moment, because the intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives cannot be interchanged.
So put mine down as informal.

Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 26, 2016
The path of light cannot be tracked in 3 dimensions
Why it shouldn't be possible?
Because once you plot the second point on the path you have introduced a 4th dimension.

Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 26, 2016
Filaments between galaxies are regions of stretched spacetime having less density
I don't also understand the term "stretched".
Pull on a rubber band. The density of rubber is then reduced along each point of the band. Similar to the density of spacetime in the filaments.

Nov 26, 2016
Dark matter is a change in the refractive index of spacetime or its density
But it differs from normal gravitational lens which are also changing the "refractive index of spacetime or its density".
Yes. Gravitational lenses are regions of spacetime whose density is changed by the presence of nearby matter. Matter displaces spacetime and so its spacetime density is decreased. This reduction in density causes a gradient in the density of spacetime. It's like stretching the rubber band. Spacetime is elastic. Or so the theory goes.

Nov 26, 2016
...once you plot the second point on the path you have introduced a 4th dimension
Why the second point of 3D path should introduce the 4th dimension?
Because the different positions reflect the passage of time. You can't have a path without time to travel along the path.

Nov 26, 2016
Spacetime is elastic. Or so the theory goes.
A better theory is spacetime is expanding. Reduce the expanding density and you increase the amount of force on each element of expanding spacetime like you increase the stretching force on each element of the rubber band when you stretch it. Some call spacetime expansion negative gravity. Seems counter-intuitive but personally I like it better.

Nov 26, 2016
...Because the light really stops at the vicinity of black hole from perspective of every observer, which is larger than it.
Not likely that light stops at the vicinity of black holes. More likely it goes into orbit around the black hole where it may stay indefinitely.

Nov 26, 2016
Some call spacetime expansion negative gravity. Seems counter-intuitive but personally I like it better.
Or repulsive gravity I guess it is.


Nov 26, 2016
There is a simple explanation to the 'horizon problem', the BB never happened and the universe is infinite in size ....

How does that explain why the universe is expanding and that there are no stars older than a certain age etc?
If the universe is currently expanding then all the mass must have once been close together and then flew apart at great speed; this is by definition the BB.

Nov 26, 2016
You can't do physics without experiment.

Incorrect; you can make perfectly valid observations and conclusions from observing a physical effect even if we cannot experimentally make it happen ourselves.
Example;
We sometimes observe stars explode and conclude that certain types of stars can explode; but we cannot do an experiment to make a star explode ourselves, only observe.

Nov 26, 2016
Einstein's relativity is invalid from the get go: timeisabsolute.org No experiments at all are needed to know that.

I just read your link and it is nonsense. It says;
"...Einstein's relativity derives the evidently physically impossible conclusion that one and the same body in one and the same system, system K, is supposed to obey two different laws of motion at the same time; .."
But then refers to the same law, not two different laws. Stupid.

Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 26, 2016
Einstein's relativity is invalid from the get go: timeisabsolute.org No experiments at all are needed to know that.

I just read your link and it is nonsense. It says;
"...Einstein's relativity derives the evidently physically impossible conclusion that one and the same body in one and the same system, system K, is supposed to obey two different laws of motion at the same time; .."
But then refers to the same law, not two different laws. Stupid.


F = ma and F = beta^3ma are two different laws, which Einstein derives for one and the same body in one and the same system to be valid simultaneously. This is physically impossible and no experiment is needed to know that. Therefore, to design experiments aimed at testing Einstein's relativity is only a waste of time, money and effort.

Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 26, 2016
@Suckertoo, Hawksauntie, Omnibutt1, etc.
...once you plot the second point on the path you have introduced a 4th dimension

Talking about plots, I think you guys have lost it.

Nov 26, 2016
This is physically impossible and no experiment is needed to know that. Therefore, to design experiments aimed at testing Einstein's relativity is only a waste of time, money and effort.


Unfortunately for you, all experiments and observations so far have shown both SR & GR to be correct. So unless you've got something new to add, you are pushing the proverbial uphill. Anonymous webpages and YT videos are not impressing anyone that matters.

Nov 26, 2016
... the energy density of curved space-time is proportional to its curvature.
Talking about plots, I think you guys have lost it.
Good point. It's the path that curves, not the medium.

Nov 26, 2016
Hey Jonesy, no better link than copying it directly from the text of GR


You always post the same quote, without even giving the source.
You simply don't recognize a direct quote sourced from GR:

Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
Albert Einstein 97

If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical). Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a simple connection 1) between the space-expanse of the universe and the average density of matter in it.



Nov 26, 2016
This is physically impossible and no experiment is needed to know that. Therefore, to design experiments aimed at testing Einstein's relativity is only a waste of time, money and effort.


Unfortunately for you, all experiments and observations so far have shown both SR & GR to be correct. So unless you've got something new to add, you are pushing the proverbial uphill. Anonymous webpages and YT videos are not impressing anyone that matters.


On the contrary. It follows from Einstein's relativity that 1 equals 2, which no experiment whatsoever can show to be correct. Anyone that really matters will never be impressed by that and will request that Einstein's relativity be removed from physics.

Nov 26, 2016
I hate to disappoint you but I already knew that decades ago.
........gets me to pondering something. I'll do some checking on the CalTech website.

Nov 26, 2016
Hmmm...going strictly by the definition of acceleration, it stands to reason that the speed of light can't be 100% constant; if one considers the gravitational sling-shot principle as a means of increasing a spacecraft's velocity, it then follows that light particles/waves deflected by a gravity source would obligatorily experience some level of velocity change.

Additionally, if time actually slows to a rate of not-quite-zero at light speed, it tends to indicate that light particles/waves exist in a quasi-suspended temporal state and that eventually every photon will lose just enough energy to fall out of relativistic time-lock and decay. Has anyone heard of or seen any maths that address this possibility?

Uncharted territory and super fascinating.

Nov 26, 2016
On the contrary. It follows from Einstein's relativity that 1 equals 2, which no experiment whatsoever can show to be correct. Anyone that really matters will never be impressed by that and will request that Einstein's relativity be removed from physics.


Such as whom? Just because some anonymous person constructs a webpage (something I could do) has zero bearing on the matter. Who are these 'people that matter', that want to get rid of the experimentally and observationally confirmed SR & GR? Names, qualifications and positions, please.
Otherwise, as has been the case throughout this thread, you are just blowing hot air. As I've said, nobody is taking the slightest bit of notice.
You have no paper to refer to, and not even an author. In effect, you have nothing. Why on Earth would anybody take you seriously?

Nov 26, 2016
Hmmm...going strictly by the definition of acceleration, it stands to reason that the speed of light can't be 100% constant; if one considers the gravitational sling-shot principle as a means of increasing a spacecraft's velocity, it then follows that light particles/waves deflected by a gravity source would obligatorily experience some level of velocity change.


Photons have ONLY inherent VELOCITY. Attributing ACCELERATION to photons isn't CALCULABLE but is TESTABLE as follows from the Shapiro Effect: that:

Proofs have never been shown that deflection actually slows photon velocity, but only that there is resulting increased trajectory of the flight-path of bent photons producing an observed lagging effect of time due to the angle of observation, thus the curvature of deflected (gravitationally lensed) starlight has a longer flight-path compared to non-deflected starlight from the same distance of the source to the observer.

Read up on Shapiro Effect.

Nov 26, 2016

Such as whom? Just because some anonymous person constructs a webpage (something I could do) has zero bearing on the matter. Who are these 'people that matter', that want to get rid of the experimentally and observationally confirmed SR & GR? Names, qualifications and positions, please.
Otherwise, as has been the case throughout this thread, you are just blowing hot air. As I've said, nobody is taking the slightest bit of notice.
You have no paper to refer to, and not even an author. In effect, you have nothing. Why on Earth would anybody take you seriously?


It's the argument that matters, not where and by whom it has been published. Anyone can make a website but not just anyone can come up with such a seminal argument overthrowing the most inappropriate theory that has overtaken physics, which can never be validated experimentally. Scientists who really matter recognize that. Others have non-scientific agendas.

Nov 26, 2016
CMBR has origin in existent vodmic space. Universe is NOW.

Nov 26, 2016
Photons have ONLY inherent VELOCITY. Attributing ACCELERATION to photons isn't CALCULABLE but is TESTABLE as follows from the Shapiro Effect: that:

Proofs have never been shown that deflection actually slows photon velocity, but only that there is resulting increased trajectory of the flight-path of bent photons producing an observed lagging effect of time due to the angle of observation, thus the curvature of deflected (gravitationally lensed) starlight has a longer flight-path compared to non-deflected starlight from the same distance of the source to the observer.

Read up on Shapiro Effect.


Thanks, Benni; on it!! :D


Nov 26, 2016
@Dark_Star
if time actually slows to a rate of not-quite-zero at light speed, it tends to indicate that light particles/waves exist in a quasi-suspended temporal state and that eventually every photon will lose just enough energy to fall out of relativistic time-lock and decay. Has anyone heard of or seen any maths that address this possibility?
Time is a measure of the expansion of matter. Movement is caused by expansion being biased in one direction. Light speed requires that the expansion takes place in only one dimension, thus the matter stops expanding three-dimensionally and time stops. See "The Situation of Gravity", free on Kindle.

Nov 26, 2016
It's NOT an upper limit to velocity per se, but it IS an outgrowth of the interaction of equal but opposite quantum scale charges creating EM radiation. This is the fundamental force of the universe

Nov 26, 2016
Time is a measure of the expansion of matter. Movement is caused by expansion being biased in one direction. Light speed requires that the expansion takes place in only one dimension, thus the matter stops expanding three-dimensionally and time stops.


Hi Reg, I guess I might quibble with you just a wee bit on the "expansion of matter" as the ONLY measurement of TIME. TIME passage occurs with ANY MOVEMENT of matter, I don't see why there needs to ONLY be EXPANSION.

For example, when I'm watching the hands of a clock move, there is movement of matter, that is the hands of the clock & the gear wheels are "moving matter" but not "expanding matter" as the hands move from one number to another around the circumference, but there is no expansion of matter unless you consider the wear & tear caused by friction on the gear wheels, otherwise everything about the clock remains in position as it measures passage of time relative to the observer. Thoughts?

Nov 26, 2016
It's NOT an upper limit to velocity per se, but it IS an outgrowth of the interaction of equal but opposite quantum scale charges creating EM radiation. This is the fundamental force of the universe

It IS an upper limit to velocity OF MATTER in our universe (photons are considered as matter).

Nov 26, 2016

It's the argument that matters, not where and by whom it has been published. Anyone can make a website but not just anyone can come up with such a seminal argument overthrowing the most inappropriate theory that has overtaken physics, which can never be validated experimentally. Scientists who really matter recognize that. Others have non-scientific agendas.


Yes, it does matter where it is published. A webpage is not recognised in the field of science as a legitimate outlet. Ergo, it does not exist. And you keep forgetting that SR/ GR has been validated, experimentally and observationally. So you still have nothing. Literally.

And how many of the world's leading physicists and mathematicians have been through that paper with a fine toothed comb in 111 years? And you reckon some anonymous person has seen something that they have all missed? Sorry, no chance. If there were anything wrong with the maths, it would have been picked up 111 years ago.

Nov 26, 2016


Yes, it does matter where it is published. A webpage is not recognised in the field of science as a legitimate outlet. Ergo, it does not exist. And you keep forgetting that SR/ GR has been validated, experimentally and observationally. So you still have nothing. Literally.

And how many of the world's leading physicists and mathematicians have been through that paper with a fine toothed comb in 111 years? And you reckon some anonymous person has seen something that they have all missed? Sorry, no chance. If there were anything wrong with the maths, it would have been picked up 111 years ago.

The argument is what what matters. The argument is what serious science considers, independent of where it has appeared. Besides, in science there's always someone who's first, even after 111 years.

Nov 26, 2016
F = ma and F = beta^3ma are two different laws, which Einstein derives for one and the same body in one and the same system to be valid simultaneously. This is physically impossible and no experiment is needed to know that. Therefore, to design experiments aimed at testing Einstein's relativity is only a waste of time, money and effort.
Don't you mean gamma (γ) instead of beta (β)? Can you not see that when v → 0 the Lorentz factor γ → 1 and the relativistic equation reduces to the classical Newtonian equation? Your assessment is physically, scientifically, and mathematically erroneous according to logic, invariance, and every relevant experiment ever performed (for example, muons created from cosmic rays colliding with molecules in the upper atmosphere are detected at ground level when, according to your assessment [that relativity is wrong], they should have decayed long before traveling that far).

Nov 26, 2016
The argument is what what matters.


No it doesn't. You don't have an argument. Just a webpage by a random poster. Your 'argument' is not within the realm of scientific work. Unless and until it is, you have nothing. Or are you just looking for fanboys, like the EU crowd?


Nov 26, 2016
The argument is what what matters.


No it doesn't. You don't have an argument. Just a webpage by a random poster. Your 'argument' is not within the realm of scientific work. Unless and until it is, you have nothing. Or are you just looking for fanboys, like the EU crowd?



It does. The argument is in your face: timeisabsolute.org The argument matters, not where and who put it forth.

Nov 26, 2016
The argument is what what matters.


No it doesn't. You don't have an argument. Just a webpage by a random poster. Your 'argument' is not within the realm of scientific work. Unless and until it is, you have nothing. Or are you just looking for fanboys, like the EU crowd?



It does. The argument is in your face: timeisabsolute.org The argument matters, not where and who put it forth.


And for the last time, until you put your 'argument' to the scientific test, you DON'T have one. Get it?
Anonymous webpages, youtube videos, and posting on a science news website count for jack ****.
You have proved zero. You are trying to overturn over a century of well understood and accepted science by the aforementioned, well known, pseudoscience tactics. It cuts no ice with scientists. Do you think they are going to come on here and see this?????
Publish it or go away.

Nov 26, 2016
Don't you mean gamma (γ) instead of beta (β)? Can you not see that when v → 0 the Lorentz factor γ → 1 and the relativistic equation reduces to the classical Newtonian equation? Your assessment is physically, scientifically, and mathematically erroneous according to logic, invariance, and every relevant experiment ever performed (for example, muons created from cosmic rays colliding with molecules in the upper atmosphere are detected at ground level when, according to your assessment [that relativity is wrong], they should have decayed long before traveling that far).


He's prattling on about section 10 of this paper: http://hermes.ffn...vity.pdf

Can't see the problem myself, but it is well outside my area of expertise. Then again, I'm not the one trying to overturn the scientific establishment!

Nov 26, 2016
It's pretty clear that our universe is four dimensions (3D + time).
After all, special relativity has been thoroughly tested.
So it possible our universe came from a 4D black hole.
If that's the case that would explain the distribution of matter as seen in the microwave background. It would also suggest that the acceleration of the universe is constant as it appears to be.

On a more interesting note, I like to think of a dimensional as a resolution since it follows a mathematic notion.
1D: 10
2D: 100
3D: 1000
4D: 10000

That if all the dimensions are spacial.
If the universe is expanding because of time, time would spacial.
It would effectively mean we could only observe 10% of the universe, but the number would be even smaller since we can't even detect the edge of this 10%.


Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 26, 2016
The argument matters, not where and who put it forth
@Omnibus101
wrong
source matters a great deal - scientists don't read random web-pages because there is no means or way to remove pseudoscience from known science

when you produce an argument from any site (even a dot.org) that can't be found in a peer reviewed journal, then the first argument should be: why isn't this in a reputable peer reviewed journal with an impact on the subject matter

source is vital - you may put forth an argument but it aint science unless it's able to be tested, validated and passes peer review

it really is simple to do that as well - all it takes is submission to a journal and publication

the reason most pseudoscience advocates don't do this is because there is overwhelming evidence refuting their argument that they simply don't know about because they didn't bother to study the topic

Nov 26, 2016


It does. The argument is in your face: timeisabsolute.org The argument matters, not where and who put it forth.


And for the last time, until you put your 'argument' to the scientific test, you DON'T have one. Get it?
Anonymous webpages, youtube videos, and posting on a science news website count for jack ****.
You have proved zero. You are trying to overturn over a century of well understood and accepted science by the aforementioned, well known, pseudoscience tactics. It cuts no ice with scientists. Do you think they are going to come on here and see this?????
Publish it or go away.


The true ultimatum is this -- because of the argument in timeisabsolute.org, Einstein's relativity must be removed from physics. The argument in timeisabsolute.org overturns over a century of something that was thought well understood and erroneously accepted as science. An argument such as the one shoen is the argument that really cuts the mustard with the true scientists.

Nov 26, 2016
The argument is what what matters.


No it doesn't. You don't have an argument. Just a webpage by a random poster. Your 'argument' is not within the realm of scientific work. Unless and until it is, you have nothing. Or are you just looking for fanboys, like the EU crowd?



It does. The argument is in your face: timeisabsolute.org The argument matters, not where and who put it forth.

@OB: the universe is not an absolute. it varies.

Nov 26, 2016
The argument in timeisabsolute.org shows that the era of the falsity, called Einstein's relativity, is over.

Nov 26, 2016
The argument in timeisabsolute.org shows that the era of the falsity, called Einstein's relativity, is over.


Lol. You've gotta love cranks! "Hey guys, I've made a webpage, and a youtube vid! Science is finished!"
Christ, it'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

Nov 26, 2016
Can anybody find a post by Omnibus that hasn't mentioned thisisabsolutebollocks.org, or whatever it's called? Seems like he's using phys.org as a vehicle to promote his crank website. If there isn't a rule against that, then there ought to be.

Nov 26, 2016
Wow , this Omnicrank is spamming with the best of them. Ok, grab a handful of mercury and explain why it's liquid at room temperature?

https://www.chemi....article

or does your explanation go something like this:

https://www.youtu...6CBEJRs.

Nov 26, 2016
The argument in timeisabsolute.org shows that the era of the falsity, called Einstein's relativity, is over.


Lol. You've gotta love cranks! "Hey guys, I've made a webpage, and a youtube vid! Science is finished!"
Christ, it'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.


If you can do that, do it. You can't unfortunately. Indeed, it takes just one web page to bring down the whole fallacy called Einstein's theory.

Nov 26, 2016
We should simply turnover the rest of the Commentary to Jonesy & Omni. I'll check back from time to time for some good chuckles.........

Nov 26, 2016
The argument in timeisabsolute.org shows that the era of the falsity, called Einstein's relativity, is over.


Lol. You've gotta love cranks! "Hey guys, I've made a webpage, and a youtube vid! Science is finished!"
Christ, it'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.


If you can do that, do it. You can't unfortunately. Indeed, it takes just one web page to bring down the whole fallacy called Einstein's theory.


Want a bet on that? Come back here on 26/11/2021, and I'll bet you that absolutely nothing has changed, despite your spam. Like I said, it's pathetic and transparent.
Ask the EU acolytes - their website is much bigger than yours, and they've done shed loads of videos. If there was a top 40 for pseudoscience video views, they'd probably be top of the charts! Still aren't taken the least bit seriously though, and they've been doing it for years.
You are wasting your time.

Nov 26, 2016
I was only enabling the kooks by actually going to their site, and expecting a train wreck, I found one. So what this kook has done is find a set of equations in Einsteins equations that suggest that a physical body must simultaneously obey two different laws. And this, they rely on as evidence of a contradiction by Einstein to invalidate the theory.

So this other physical condition might be a stationary frame as opposed to a moving frame perhaps? The site is all of a few paragraphs long and mainly cut and paste with some crayon over excerpts from Einstein. Hard to tell if the two reference frame conditions have been dealt a fatal blow by the new genius of our era.

Nov 26, 2016

Want a bet on that? Come back here on 26/11/2021, and I'll bet you that absolutely nothing has changed, despite your spam. Like I said, it's pathetic and transparent.
Ask the EU acolytes - their website is much bigger than yours, and they've done shed loads of videos. If there was a top 40 for pseudoscience video views, they'd probably be top of the charts! Still aren't taken the least bit seriously though, and they've been doing it for years.
You are wasting your time.


I don't know about 26/11/2016, however, around 12/04/2016 the National Academy of Sciences is expected to come up with an answer to the kind invitation with a respectful request to advise the nation that Einstein's relativity must be removed from physics due to exactly this argument, which I quoted so many times in this exchange. And, rest assured, said invitation will not end up on 12/04/2016. The expected resistance will be met with further determination for said menace to be removed.

Nov 26, 2016
I was only enabling the kooks by actually going to their site, and expecting a train wreck, I found one. So what this kook has done is find a set of equations in Einsteins equations that suggest that a physical body must simultaneously obey two different laws. And this, they rely on as evidence of a contradiction by Einstein to invalidate the theory.

So this other physical condition might be a stationary frame as opposed to a moving frame perhaps? The site is all of a few paragraphs long and mainly cut and paste with some crayon over excerpts from Einstein. Hard to tell if the two reference frame conditions have been dealt a fatal blow by the new genius of our era.


This is all it takes to bring the whole Einstein's relativity down. I'm not to blame for that. Einstein is to blame for putting forth such lame ``theory''.

Nov 26, 2016
So tell me; does this invalidate the two frame system which underpins relativity and if so, how? Can you explain how this invalidates relativity with either mathematics or a simpler analogy. That is to say, can you communicate something to us? You can't, and you will continue to rant about the end of a theory without explaining anything.

Nov 26, 2016
So this other physical condition might be a stationary frame as opposed to a moving frame perhaps? The site is all of a few paragraphs long and mainly cut and paste with some crayon over excerpts from Einstein. Hard to tell if the two reference frame conditions have been dealt a fatal blow by the new genius of our era.


That's exactly what it is. See section 10 of the paper I linked earlier: http://hermes.ffn...vity.pdf

A moving frame and a stationary frame.That is the bit that is cut and pasted, albeit in German. The link above is the whole paper in English.
Nothing to see here. Will drag in a few cranks, but so does EU, Crothers, Robitaille etc. No bugger takes them seriously either!

Nov 26, 2016
You, both, go to the site and you'll find answers to your questions. You can't just talk without an effort to understand what's there.

Nov 26, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 26, 2016
I went to the site, immediately understood that the equation that contain a beta function must be the alternate space time frame that is the very premise of SR. And yet you somehow could not understand this very simple and preliminary step in the building of the theory, yet focused on the fact that one equation contains a beta function and therefore concluded (erroneously!) it must be a contradiction because the same laws of motion are described by both. I've shot your site so full of holes you can now drain spaghetti with it.

Prove me wrong!

Nov 26, 2016
@omnibus,
I gave you a scientific argument, you loon. The best you can come up with is a crank website and a bloody youtube video! Tell me, who is doing the peer review at youtube these days?
As I said, any idiot (as proven) can put together a crank website, or make a youtube video to convince the more gullible and scientifically illiterate members of society. There are all sorts of cranks doing it. Your lot are no different.


I will report you to the moderator for ad hominem attack. You're supposed to give scientific arguments and not offend the opponent.


Read the forum rules, you troll:

Do not include links in signatures or links to irrelevant materials: Comments that contain irrelevant links (including links in signatures) will be deleted. Linking to obviously "crackpot" sites is prohibited.

Nov 26, 2016
I went to the site, immediately understood that the equation that contain a beta function must be the alternate space time frame that is the very premise of SR. And yet you somehow could not understand this very simple and preliminary step in the building of the theory, yet focused on the fact that one equation contains a beta function and therefore concluded (erroneously!) it must be a contradiction because the same laws of motion are described by both. I've shot your site so full of holes you can now drain spaghetti with it.

Prove me wrong!


No, the equation containing the beta function is in the same system K for the same body for which the equation without the beta function is valid. That is, one and the same body, in one and the same system K is ridiculously maintained to obey two completely different laws of motion at the same time.

Nov 26, 2016
Axiom: There exist a set of diametrical spherical fields, i.e. charge, apparently never created or destroyed. The fields are continuous from its center to infinity. They may occupy the same point at the same time given conditions that obey Coulomb. The field of each point is updated at the speed of light relative to its center. The fields are transparent and are all that exist! All we can see is this response. The speed of light, i.e. wavelength*frequency is a spatial constant and obeys measurement; but does represent the speed of the Front, i.e. error in the definition of the Poynting Vector, for the wave front has the Poynting Vector due to the center of the field and updated at that rate, only, relative to that center. Therefore the speed of light is better defined as the emitted wavelength divided by the measured period, i.e. priori information.

Nov 26, 2016
The atom is not held together by Gluons. The neutron is composed of only 1 set of DSFs. It may be expressed as a neutron or a hydrogen atom or spin of 1 SF, with a display we call a neutrino. But assume a He nucleus, 2p, 2n is actually 4p, 4e and you may compute the summation of the coulomb forces to equal a stationary nucleus or play with whatever change of state you wish, 8 equations, 8 unknowns, in 3D, maybe design graphics for 4D, i.e. video.

Nov 26, 2016
Note: Empty space is only conceptual, i.e. no pressure, tautology!

Nov 26, 2016
You may do experiments with and without logic. The experiment without logic is foolish!

Nov 26, 2016
See the light!

Nov 26, 2016
No, the equation containing the beta function is in the same system K for the same body for which the equation without the beta function is valid.

No, it isn't. To quote the man himself (in the English version):

"From the above assumption, in combination with the principle of relativity, it is clear that in the immediately ensuing time (for small values of t) the electron, viewed from the system k, moves in accordance with the equations....." And thence follows the equations without the beta function.
And then:

"With the help of these equations we transform the above equations of motion from system k to system K, and obtain......."
And thence follows the equation including the beta function.

System k is the moving system, system K is the stationary system.
The moving electron in system K is being viewed from system k.
I would seriously suggest that you get somebody with a thorough understanding of the theory to go through it with you. If I can see it, anybody can.

Nov 26, 2016
``System k is the moving system, system K is the stationary system.
The moving electron in system K is being viewed from system k.
I would seriously suggest that you get somebody with a thorough understanding of the theory to go through it with you. If I can see it, anybody can.''

You should refrain from suggesting anything because you yourself don't understand the matter at hand.

To really understand what is going on you must understand the first postulate. The first postulate expresses the absolute trivial truth that uniform rectilinear motion is akin to rest. Once you understand that, then you'll see why the equation in K remains unchanged in k and vice versa. The moving electron (system k, that is) is viewed from K and the only presentation of the law is F = ma in K and F' = ma' in k. That's all. Any further gibberish, as is done in §10, leads to internal contradiction, as explained in the link. This further gibberish is a crucial error of magnificent proportions.

Nov 26, 2016
Besides, one can clearly see, as a detail, that the claim that Einstein's relativity can derive E = mc² is one big, fat lie. Not only can Einstein's relativity not derive E = mc² but that mass-energy relationship is trivially present in classical physics. For instance, Ampere's law is one classic expression of the mass-energy relationship E = mc².

Nov 26, 2016
@Omni,
Rubbish. Simple as that. You obviously haven't a clue what is going on here. Like I said, write your nonsense up, and present it to a respectable peer reviewed journal, if you want to make a fool of yourself.
Before you do that, to try to understand what section 10 is ACTUALLY saying, look at the thought experiment in this link (aptly, it is from 'Einstein's Special Relativity for Dummies'!):
http://www.dummie...ativity/

THAT is what is being described in section 10.

And then you can see the experimental verification in this article:
https://en.wikipe...lativity
And a shed load of references to it here: http://www.edu-ob...nts.html
Which includes links to relativistic effects on mass, among many other confirmations.


Nov 26, 2016
Like I said, you have no clue and therefore should not express opinions but should try to learn something instead. There can be no relativistic effects whatsoever because Einstein's relativity is obviously invalid. Did you try to understand what I explained or you'll continue with the insults and with your embarrassing incompetence?

Nov 26, 2016
From your link: First postulate, called also the principle of relativity: ``The principle of relativity: The laws of physics don't change, even for objects moving in inertial (constant speed) frames of reference.'' Did you read that? If you did read it and made an effort to understand it, then you'd know that F' = ma' is the only way you can write in k, the law F = ma written in K and vice versa. No betas no nothing. Anything more than that brings in internal contradiction, which is a dramatic flaw with far-reaching consequences. Is that so difficult to understand?

Nov 26, 2016
Constancy of the speed of light is completely irrelevant for the validity of Einstein's relativity and those fellows proposing ``theories'' and whatnot to test it are only wasting time, money and effort to test something so obviously flawed.

Nov 26, 2016
He's prattling on about section 10 of this paper: http://hermes.ffn...vity.pdf
Ah, Einstein called it "Beta" – it's what is better known as the Lorentz factor (and it was widely known before 1905). It arises when doing the maths of Lorentz transformations, a special type of coordinate transformation – going from one reference frame to a different one which is moving at a different velocity than the first one (from one "inertial" frame of reference to another). The irony is that Lorentz invariance allows different observers to agree on fundamental qualities like conservation of energy, momentum, and rest mass despite having differing measurements of quantities like elapsed time, length contractions, and relativistic mass. Omnotibus101 somehow sees different laws from related expressions when one of the postulates of SR is the laws are the same in all frames.

Nov 26, 2016
@Omni,
So write your paper, and post a link to it when it's done. So we can all have a laugh. I'm done with it. No point arguing with someone who thinks they have proved Einstein wrong (whilst totally misunderstanding what he's saying), and goes about it by creating an anonymous webpage, and continually spamming it on a science news comments section!
Like I've said - pathetic.

Nov 26, 2016
@Protoplazmix: Involving Lorentz transformations gets Einstein's ``theory'' into internal contradictions because they change the law in K, a law which must stay unchanged in K. Everything past the second set of equations in §10 is gibberish. All that is explained in the link I gave.

Nov 26, 2016
It arises when doing the maths of Lorentz transformations, a special type of coordinate transformation – going from one reference frame to a different one which is moving at a different velocity than the first one (from one "inertial" frame of reference to another). The irony is that Lorentz invariance allows different observers to agree on fundamental qualities like conservation of energy, momentum, and rest mass despite having differing measurements of quantities like elapsed time, length contractions, and relativistic mass. Omnotibus101 somehow sees different laws from related expressions when one of the postulates of SR is the laws are the same in all frames.


Indeed. Like I've said, he's just totally misunderstanding what is being described. Still, let him go ahead if it makes him feel better. It'll end in either total ridicule, or a Nobel Prize! I know what my money is on. Seen too many of these type of cranks over the years. Internet has made it worse!

Nov 26, 2016
@Omni,
So write your paper, and post a link to it when it's done. So we can all have a laugh. I'm done with it. No point arguing with someone who thinks they have proved Einstein wrong (whilst totally misunderstanding what he's saying), and goes about it by creating an anonymous webpage, and continually spamming it on a science news comments section!
Like I've said - pathetic.


Obviously, you like to embarrass yourself and waste bandwidth by exposing your incompetence.

Nov 26, 2016
How does one measure or even contemplate the density of an illusion? What you see in a star-field, is NOT there. It is what WAS there. And what you see, was NOT all there at the SAME TIME. Two stars at two different times do not effect one another.

99% of astronomy is very expensive crap. All we get is pretty pictures.


Nov 26, 2016
@jonesdave: ``he's just totally misunderstanding what is being described.''

Not at all. You haven't proved that. The only thing you've proved is that you are incompetent and cannot engage in a simple scientific discussion (because of your incompetence) and are trying to get away with insults, sidetracking and doxxing. That won't work. I'll be around and will not allow for the aggressive incompetence, such as yours, to prevail.

Nov 26, 2016
@jonesdave: ``he's just totally misunderstanding what is being described.''

Not at all. You haven't proved that. The only thing you've proved is that you are incompetent and cannot engage in a simple scientific discussion (because of your incompetence) and are trying to get away with insults, sidetracking and doxxing. That won't work. I'll be around and will not allow for the aggressive incompetence, such as yours, to prevail.


Lol. Read this: http://cognitiona...ulations

Don't forget to get back to us when you've written that paper. I would seriously suggest running it by a physics forum first though. Try Cosmoquest's 'Against the Mainstream' thread, or International Skeptics Forum. They'd love you!

Nov 26, 2016
I'll be around and will not allow for the aggressive incompetence, such as yours, to prevail
@omni
aggressive incompetence is linking to a web-site for a claim that supposedly overturns one of the most successful theories in history

essentially you've made a claim
that claim does not have evidence except your insistence that it's true
there is no peer review
there is no evidence
there is only your claim

until you submit a peer reviewed paper that makes a point this is nothing more than your belief - that's it

and even if it passes peer review it's not going to overturn anything until it is validated through second non-affiliated parties

you haven't passed the lowest step for a scientific pronouncement but you're claiming it's physics altering - that is the very definition of pseudoscience and "aggressive incompetence"

Nov 26, 2016
How does one, with a theory that contains mass, mass is undefined, it's only a constant of measurement, use mass as causal? Constants of measurement do not infer that the constant is causal for what you are trying to measure. Mass is portional to the number of charge pairs within the mass, although we are close, gravity with respect to the fundamental has never been defined! I argue the argument is mute, and that we do not even have fundamental global constants based upon logic, nor is there any theory based upon a set of defined axioms.

Nov 26, 2016
The atom is not held together by Gluons. The neutron is composed of only 1 set of DSFs. It may be expressed as a neutron or a hydrogen atom or spin of 1 SF, with a display we call a neutrino. But assume a He nucleus, 2p, 2n is actually 4p, 4e and you may compute the summation of the coulomb forces to equal a stationary nucleus or play with whatever change of state you wish, 8 equations, 8 unknowns, in 3D, maybe design graphics for 4D, i.e. video.

catch error 2e i.e. 6eq 6 unknowns, orbiters?

Nov 26, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: Aggressive incompetence is not to address the issue but to sidetrack it, as you do, by just saying that there is no evidence, while there is evidence. The evidence is that in §10 F = ma in K cannot be presented in any other way in k but by F' = ma'. Einstein's had ignored that obvious requirement of the I postulate and has mistakenly applied the Lorentz transformations, which has lead to an internal contradiction. Aggressive incompetence is to ignore this evidence and insist that there is no evidence. I assure you that if you and I appear before a learned audience you will not be able to sustain your claim that I'm not providing evidence. Be less arrogant and respect science.

Nov 26, 2016
as you do, by just saying that there is no evidence, while there is evidence
@omni
if there was evidence you would be able to link a peer reviewed journal and not your personal website filled with your delusional beliefs
Aggressive incompetence is to ignore this evidence and insist that there is no evidence
i can't ignore something that doesn't exist
you still haven't linked any actual science - just your claims
I assure you that if you and I appear before a learned audience you will not be able to sustain your claim that I'm not providing evidence
i'll take that bet: where do you want to meet?
loser pays travel expenses, ok?
Be less arrogant and respect science
the only arrogance displayed here is your own
you made a claim - you have yet to prove your claim

proof = a peer reviewed study published in a reputable journal

until then, try scoring yourself here: http://math.ucr.e...pot.html

Nov 26, 2016
I have wondered why Wallace's paper and observations go unnoticed.

"Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space" Nov 1969.

In which the abstract says: "Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c".

I've noticed that the distances between here and Venus are greater than the distances in any land based lab, and maybe that is why the results in his paper are the way they are.

Nov 26, 2016
I have wondered why Wallace's paper and observations go unnoticed.


A) Because he was wrong

B) Because he was an 'ether' nut.

http://www.tandfo...08065415

Nov 27, 2016
Everything past the second set of equations in §10 is gibberish
Then wear glasses. Omcrockeribus101, not even if your website was as yoooge as fox news would you be able to pass such anti-science used horse feed off as anything useful other than maybe to students of the social sciences specializing in readjustment of maladjusted minds.

Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy, peer-review is absolutely not a requirement, especially when it concerns the validity of a obviously correct argument, as the one I've presented. Requiring peer-review is only a smoke screen for your incompetence. Let alone the clear impossibility for a counterarguments. As for meeting you, I don't need to pay your expenses if I call you in a court of law and believe me, you will be the loser in a court of law on the issues at hand. So, be more careful when you resort to attacks rather than engage in a productive discussion from which you may learn something.

Nov 27, 2016
@Protoplasmix, I already warned @Captain Stumpy and now I'm warning you. Don't resort to insults but try to carry out a normal scientific exchange. Enough is enough. I repeat, and you should try to understand it, if this exchange is to be productive -- Everything past the second set of equations in §10 is gibberish because the first set of equations shows the only way, by applying the I postulate, the law can be presented in system K and in system k. After the second set of equations Einstein resorts to Lorentz transformations for presenting the law in K, which changes the law and that's in conflict with the I postulate (The Principle of Relativity). This sole error brings down the whole edifice built around Einstein's relativity, such as, cosmology, string theories, black holes, big bang and whatnot.

Nov 27, 2016
peer-review is absolutely not a requirement
@omni
spoken like a true pseudoscience advocate
yes, it is a requirement because it is the first step in the prevention of pseudoscience
Don't resort to insults but try to carry out a normal scientific exchange
1- i've not resorted to insults - i've pointed out you have no evidence

2- when discussing science and making a point about "proof" or "evidence", especially when making a claim that overturns a known established validated truth, one must remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

you have not brought any evidence except for your personal claim that something you believe is true

that in and of itself is like arguing that because i own a garage, surely i can see that your ability to stand in it would make you a toyota

therefore your insistence that your claim is true without evidence and validation is far, far more insulting and not even science

Enough is enough

Nov 27, 2016
@omni cont'd
I repeat
don't repeat
repetition doesn't make anything more true, nor is it validation of your claim
period
Everything past the second set of equations in §10 is gibberish because
and everything you wrote past this point is complete gibberish because you cannot prove it

you have absolutely no evidence
none whatsoever, other than your claim that it's true
if relativity wasn't accepted until the evidence proved it correct, then the same thing applies to your argument
This sole error brings down the whole edifice
or so you claim
making a claim don't make it true

you claim it brings down relativity but you can't prove it

that is my whole point

that will remain my point until you can prove, with validation, that it does, in which time i will be forced to accept the evidence

until then - it's all bluster and bullsh*t drawing flies and not scientists

& that isn't an insult - it's reality

Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy: Enough is enough, indeed. The evidence is that in §10 F = ma in K cannot be presented in any other way in k but by F' = ma'. Einstein had ignored that obvious requirement of the I postulate and has mistakenly applied the Lorentz transformations, which has lead to an internal contradiction requiring rejection of his ``theory''. This is extraordinary evidence of immense significance. It's right in your face. Lying that there's no evidence doesn't erase the evidence. Don't lie.

Nov 27, 2016
@omni
The evidence is that in §10
repeating yourself isn't going to suddenly make it more true - or didn't you get that when i said
repetition doesn't make anything more true, nor is it validation of your claim
if you can't prove it with evidence, you're making a claim

at best, this claim is an "untested claim" (read this: http://www.auburn...ion.html )

considering that the evidence of relativity directly refutes your claim, then one can consider your claim a "false claim", otherwise known as a lie

my point: until you can actually prove your point with evidence and not simply your reiteration of past statements, then it is not anything other than a claim

It's right in your face
Lying that there's evidence doesn't erase the fact that you haven't brought evidence
Don't lie
prove

get it yet?

Nov 27, 2016
@Captain Stumpy, Don't lie. It is a direct evidence, seen immediately in §10, that F = ma in K cannot be presented in any other way in k but by F' = ma'. This is what the I postulate requires. My personal opinion has nothing to do with it. This actually proves my point, which you have no way to challenge but instead are resorting to insults. Don't insult your opponent and don't lie.

Nov 27, 2016
@omni
lets make this even simpler, because apparently you can't comprehend the basics

relativity isn't true because of the math, or because Einstein said it
it is true because of the following:

it was hypothesized, and then a method was designed to not only test it but also falsify it, to insure that we knew how to determine it's accuracy

it was then tested (this is the evidence of which i speak) making it a point of interest

then it was re-tested various ways by non-related parties to insure accuracy and validated

this validation lead to further hypothesizing and designs for testing and falsification which in turn lead to more validation

it is still tested

.

what you have done is this:

you made a claim
not a hypothesis, nor a means to test it, and especially not a means to falsify it
just a claim

that's it

a claim

nothing more

https://en.wikipe...cess.svg

Nov 27, 2016
Don't lie. It is a direct evidence, seen immediately
@omni
no, it isnt
you made a claim

that's it
My personal opinion has nothing to do with it
then by all means, show the evidence
show the testing that was done to prove your ASSumptions correct
show the falsification requirements
show the validated results
(this is colloquially known as "evidence")
This actually proves my point
no, it doesn't
which you have no way to challenge
actually i do: read my last post and then this link - https://en.wikipe...evidence

Don't insult your opponent
you are insulting me with claims and no evidence
I am simply stating the facts: you have no evidence other than your claims

ask Benni - i can be far more insulting if i try
don't lie
there isn't a single lie above, nor can you prove it with any evidence at all

repeating your lie doesn't make it more true

show me the EVIDENCE