Conjecture by mephestopheles (split from new theories are trash?)

[mephestopheles]

So many people have commented.
I am amazed at the outpouring of information .
My Theory : Maybe something unthought of , Maybe Not.
All things are made up of smaller constituent particles. This has been demonstrated in so many different ways it hardly needs proof I would like to think.
The LHC has shown us that "things" can be broken down into their smallest constituent particles . I blows very tiny things up .
When these Objects collide at a nearly the speed of Light they Dis integrate. By that I mean the individual constituent particles are separated from each other.
Each particle then has it's own set of Properties that describe it as being a different object or type of object than the others in the Integrated Object.
For instance a quark is not a Proton it is a part of a Proton but is not the Proton.
What happens to the Particles after they have been blasted apart from the bonds that hold them together
Do they find a Proton with missing quarks and bond to it or remain dis integrated ?
This what my theory is based on, the dis - integration of particles in a medium of infinite size, Height, width, depth, and duration .
I contend that in the beginning , everything that exists now, existed then, it just was not "integrated" in larger pieces than the smallest possible particle of the various elements that exist now.
The medium I can do some math on - Or Universe is about 13.7 Billion years old. It has expanded in that time to be roughly 100 billion light years in diameter.
This is what we can "see" , what we can detect with the current technology available. Of that roughly 5% is "normal" matter. The rest is Dark Matter and Dark Energy which has only been quote detected unquote because of the gravitational field it has.
Some "lensing" has even been observed.
I would submit that this Dark Matter and Dark Energy IS the disintegrated elements that make up all of our Universe and since only 5% is Normal Matter the Conversion is still an active process.
I calculate that at the current rate of expansion this Universe would run out of dis - integrated materials when it is 2.74x10^15 years old.
But, due to Stephen Hawking's theory explaining what is now called Hawking Radiation it has been shown that a possible lengthening of that would be in order. Why, Black holes are not compressing matter into an infinitesimally small space , they are dis- integrating it back into the state where it is no longer "normal' Matter and Energy but Dark Matter and Energy and expelling it back into the Universe.
Black Holes - Are the most massive at the center of Large or what used to be large Galaxies.
I submit that the reason for this is simple / compounded Gravity. Not inside the Hole so much as Outside . What is in the hole is in the form of a Vortex, a Gravity vortex fed by the gravity of Billions of Trillions of stars circling it at varying distances but ALL of which have gravity. consider how much ( like the moon causes tides ) compounded gravity there would be in a 1 degree section( like a pie slice) of a Galaxie 280 million light years in radius. Draw that to a pinpoint central target and there would be NOTHING in the Universe that would not be dis - integrated to very smallest possible state . Now compound that by 365 degrees.
Unimaginable force pulling on the center of the black hole from every direction. Gravity so strong that Photons have the Radient energy stripped from that which does not radiate. This is dis integration.
Re - integrating - I am working on this. it is the founding action ALL of this is based on. Particles that belong together being thrown Light years apart from each other. How do they rejoin to each other ? Do they rejoin to each other or do they fall into place where they fit like Micro-Cosmic Sub-Atomic Sub Particulate Tetris blocks ? How fast does it occur ? Has this rejoining been demonstrated at LHC or are there ONLY explosions and detection of that and the study stops there?
Galactic shapes and other vortices -- When ( for the sake of less typing I would like to call Dis-Integrated Particles " D particles" ) D Particles combine to form a Proton, Neutron, etc. what process system is followed - how Geometrically does it proceed ?
I submit that it all follows a specific pattern and one of, if not The, most common Pattern in nature. Fibonacci numbers .
It is seen in Galaxies as it is also in water, In snail shells and in Tornadoes , even in DNA . The test for me will be to see at some point galaxies which are reversed in rotation from what is Normally seen . Like water swirls one way in the Northern Hemisphere and the other direction the Southern.
To me this would greatly gratifying .
Same for Black Holes.
There you have it some of the Theories I have worked out mentally, like in a thought experiment , ruling out one action and trying another, ruling it out and trying a third, etc.
MY main BURNING question I would like to prove is that there was no Big Bang .
Everything was not blown apart but just by as yet some unknown catalyst ( perhaps gravity ) started joining together, quickly . Like blowing up a surgical glove with a gas. The expansion is quick but "controlled" and proceeds in a specific manner after a set pattern. This would be on a Universal scale .
Fibonacci numbers.

 

[mephestopheles]

xyzt ,
I don't pretend to know everything . I do "see" things in my mind , though .
I stated clearly that I did not expect acceptance .
What I say flies in the face of everything I have read about "how" everything came to be as it is today .
Yet I see it as a distinct possibility .
The common theory in existence say's that from an infinitesimally small space heat and gravity caused so much excitement in the plasma that existed then that it ignited and the Proof of it is "gravity waves" that have been recently discovered And the " Residual Microwave Background Noise " . It expanded very quickly ( nanoseconds ) and then in a very short time things began to cool and coalesce into larger and larger clumps of matter and then made Stars, and Galaxies , and Dark matter and Normal Matter and Anti Matter , etc .

All of this according to some is a Hologram or the Universe is Flat like Pizza. Some say it's rolled up like a Tube . Depictions by Artists ( whose hand is guided by the Knowledge given to him by a Scientist I am sure ) are in most cases I have seen like a long narrow Bell .
But , what do we See when we look out into the Universe - 360 degrees Cosmic East to West and 360 degrees Cosmic North to South ?
The depictions I have seen of the Cosmic Microwave background don't support a Flat Universe or a Tube or a Hologram and no Strings to support the "String" theory have been found YET either.
These are all accepted as Possible Viable Theoretical ideas and people work very hard to make the math show what they want to see. Calculation after calculation is thrown out till Viola' the problem is solved.
What type of Mathematics do you use for an Idea that is so far "Out there" and so much BS that the math hasn't even been invented yet to describe it properly ?
What formula would YOU use to describe a particle that was broken down into it's smallest possible constituent parts ?
Can you expand that to show an entire Universe FULL of them and nothing else ?
Can you describe Vortices that may have formed and grew and caused particles to bump into each other and some of them to stick together in one way and some to stick in another ?
You may know how to do this , I don't .
In Mathematical terms what would show proof of a catalyst that started a chain reaction so large that it filled that universe with "Normal" matter ?

Which when mapped Now looks like an Ant farm with Tunnels going in all directions ?
Surely you keep up with the latest news enough to be able to recognise this specific thing I am speaking of.
It is a Mapping of the Dark Matter in our observable Universe and where it is thought to be.
I can take criticism. Speak your mind.

But while you're at it consider that Many of Einstein's equations have been found to be flawed .
How many have you put to the side as not Viable ?
Mathematics might be the way to describe something to someone who knows nothing but mathematics. But, that's not everyone.
Sometimes you just have to talk.

Cladking see " Phaneron " .
There is no reality ( literally outside of YOU ) everything that exists is as you perceive it to be.
This is " YOUR " reality.
Specific to you, and no one else will experience it Exactly the same way.

[Strange]

 

But while you're at it consider that Many of Einstein's equations have been found to be flawed .

 

For example?

My Theory : Maybe something unthought of , Maybe Not.

All things are made up of smaller constituent particles. This has been demonstrated in so many different ways it hardly needs proof I would like to think.

 

This is certainly not novel. It also appears to be wrong. There is NO evidence that "all things are made up of smaller constituent particles". There are various theories (hypotheses) that fundamental particles may not be fundamental but currently there is no evidence for any of them.

 

 

The test for me will be to see at some point galaxies which are reversed in rotation from what is Normally seen .

 

Galaxies rotate in all directions. There is no "normally seen" direction.

 

 

There you have it some of the Theories I have worked out mentally

 

These are not theories, they are just random unsupported (and untestable) speculations. Not science.

 

MY main BURNING question I would like to prove is that there was no Big Bang .

 

Why? This is not a very scientific attitude. You should look at the evidence and develop a theory based on that.

 

If you want to show that the big bang model is wrong then you need to show that either General Relativity is wrong (that is going to be tough) or show that all the accumulated evidence supporting the big bang model is incorrect (which is also going to be tough).

 

 

All of this according to some is a Hologram or the Universe is Flat like Pizza. Some say it's rolled up like a Tube .

 

Nobody says the universe is "flat like pizza". I have never heard of described as rolled up like a tube, either. Can you provide a reference for either of these claims?

 

 

But , what do we See when we look out into the Universe - 360 degrees Cosmic East to West and 360 degrees Cosmic North to South ?

 

We see almost exactly the same thing in every direction. This is part of the evidence for the big bang model.

 

 

people work very hard to make the math show what they want to see.

 

That is not how science works. The only people who would do that are Internet cranks with their own pet theory. But then they rarely have any mathematics.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Strange

[swansont]

My Theory : Maybe something unthought of , Maybe Not.

All things are made up of smaller constituent particles. This has been demonstrated in so many different ways it hardly needs proof I would like to think.

The LHC has shown us that "things" can be broken down into their smallest constituent particles . I blows very tiny things up .

 

 

No, not so much. Experiments like those run at the LHC create particles because kinetic energy can be converted into mass; most of the particles detected at the LHC were never inside of the protons.

 

Further, we have not found any structure to some particles, such as quarks, electrons and muons.

 

A true theory would make predictions about the masses and/or other properties of these proposed constituents, and allow for one to devise experiments to look for them. But if everything is made of other particles, what's the end game to this idea? Is it turtles all the way down?

 

I calculate that at the current rate of expansion this Universe would run out of dis - integrated materials when it is 2.74x10^15 years old.

 

 

Let's see the calculation

[xyzt]

But while you're at it consider that Many of Einstein's equations have been found to be flawed .

How many have you put to the side as not Viable ?

Are you comparing yourself with Einstein? Because the parallel doesn't hold.

 

 

 

Mathematics might be the way to describe something to someone who knows nothing but mathematics. But, that's not everyone.

The language of physics is math. You have no math. You have no experiments. Therefore, you have nothing.

 

 

 

Sometimes you just have to talk.

 

No one is stopping you. But what you are doing is not physics, it is just...talk.

Edited September 24, 2014 by xyzt

[mephestopheles]

 

For example?

 

 

E=mc2 | Albert Einstein

This expression appears tangentially in Einstein's 1905 work "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?" Based upon the work of Heinrich Hertz and the equations of Maxwell, the document did not describe a general derivation for E=mc2. In other words, it did not provide a comprehensive description of mass energy equivalence starting from the equations of motion that in this case would be the Lorentz Equations. Rather the 'miracle' paper was torn apart by the famous scientist Planck and others who noticed deficiencies in the original formulation. In fact, it expresses the results of a simple analysis of pulses of light to the right and to the left of a radiating object given equal energy pulses of L/2 in opposite directions. Passing the equations through momentum computations the change in an object's lost mass is the energy L/(c^2). Thus, Einstein, did not originally provide a generalized, decisive and conclusive description of mass-energy equivalence.

http://www.relativitycollapse.com/e=mc2.html

General Relativity Predicts Space-Time Singularities

Space-time singularities and event horizons are a consequence of general relativity, appearing in the solutions of the gravitational field. Although the "big bang" singularity and "black holes" have been an topic of intensive study in theoretical astrophysics, one can seriously doubt that such mathematical monsters should really represent physical objects. In fact, in order to predict black holes one has to extrapolate the theory of general relativity far beyond observationally known gravity strengths. Quoting Albert Einstein shows that he was quite aware of this conceptual problem:

"For large densities of field and of matter, the field equations and even the field variables which enter into them will have no real significance. One may not therefore assume the validity of the equations for very high density of field and of matter, and one may not conclude that the 'beginning of the expansion' [of the universe] must mean a singularity in the mathematical sense. All we have to realize is that the equations may not be continued over such regions." [2]

http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/speed/fgr.html

Edited September 25, 2014 by mephestopheles

[Strange]

E=mc2 | Albert Einstein

This expression appears tangentially in Einstein's 1905 work "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?" Based upon the work of Heinrich Hertz and the equations of Maxwell, the document did not describe a general derivation for E=mc2. In other words, it did not provide a comprehensive description of mass energy equivalence starting from the equations of motion that in this case would be the Lorentz Equations. Rather the 'miracle' paper was torn apart by the famous scientist Planck and others who noticed deficiencies in the original formulation. In fact, it expresses the results of a simple analysis of pulses of light to the right and to the left of a radiating object given equal energy pulses of L/2 in opposite directions. Passing the equations through momentum computations the change in an object's lost mass is the energy L/(c^2). Thus, Einstein, did not originally provide a generalized, decisive and conclusive description of mass-energy equivalence.

http://www.relativitycollapse.com/e=mc2.html

 

 

So you are unhappy with the initial derivation. Meh. It has been derived by others in other ways. It has been confirmed by many different experiments over the last 80 years. So I don't see how it is "flawed".

 

But wait, it is worse than that. All you have done is copy someone else's unhappiness with the initial derivation. And worse still: you quote an obvious crackpot. (*)

 

Do you have any actual evidence that special relativity is flawed?

 

(*) I made the mistake of browsing some other pages of that website. A truly dismal spectacle. Why would anyone want to put their ignorance on such public display? <sigh>

Edited September 25, 2014 by Strange

[Bignose]

E=mc2

I hope you have another bullet in that gun. Because [math]E=mc^2[/math] has been shown to be correct a great many times.

 

Care to try again?

[mephestopheles]

The language of physics is math. You have no math. You have no experiments. Therefore, you have nothing.

Sorry, but , I seem to have misplaced my Collider .

Experimentation of this nature would be Impossible without one.

However, in the reports I have read about the Collisions of "Hadrons" or Proton bundles at CERN in the LHC , there are many wordy descriptions of what happens during the Explosions, how that various particles are produced and how long the "decay" period is for each , But no information as to where they "Go" what happens to them after the explosions . Do they just Disappear or do they then become Dis Integrated Particles ?

Perhaps an equation for something like that might look something like -E=(square root of "c")/m ?

I am am not a physicist. I don't have the maths .

I can however describe an object in basic terms Height, width, depth and duration .

Unless I am mistaken that describes a 4 dimensional object .

So lets try describing a "D Particle as H^-infinity x W^-infinity x D^-infinity x ( T ( duration ) =1^infinity ).Without the "1" for duration I believe I would have described a physical state that doesn't exist as in ( T^ -infinity ).

Now you have a mathematical "idea" or general concept of what I mean by a Dis Integrated particle .

It isn't connected to anything else except Time.

Now multiply that particle enough times to fill an area the size of the Universe and you have the state I see as being before the Conversion of these particles into "Normal" matter began .

Perhaps a description like this [ H^-infinity x W^-infinity x D^-infinity x ( T ( duration ) =1^infinity ) ] x infinity ?

Now can you have a "little" understanding as to what I am trying to get at ?

Edited September 25, 2014 by mephestopheles

[Strange]

However, in the reports I have read about the Collisions of "Hadrons" or Proton bundles at CERN in the LHC , there are many wordy descriptions of what happens during the Explosions, how that various particles are produced and how long the "decay" period is for each , But no information as to where they "Go" what happens to them after the explosions .

 

Er, they decay. Producing cascades of other particles. The details are available.

 

Which goes to show that you don't need to spend billions on particle accelerator, you can us the results produced by those we already have.

[ajb]

However, in the reports I have read about the Collisions of "Hadrons" or Proton bundles at CERN in the LHC , there are many wordy descriptions of what happens during the Explosions, how that various particles are produced and how long the "decay" period is for each ...

Okay, but for the real scientific work you will need to look at scientific papers. From what you have said you should look at particle physics phenomenology papers. Try here http://arxiv.org/archive/hep-ph

 

You may need to do some background reading in quantum field theory and the standard model. You won't need to be too rigours or mathematical here, just a basic grounding should do.

 

You could try Tong's lecture notes http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/qft.html

 

Then you will want something a bit more focused on the standard model. Osborn has some notes on QFT and the standard model. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/ho/

 

Okay, so get back to us in 6 months to a year. Good luck

[swansont]

 

E=mc2 | Albert Einstein

This expression appears tangentially in Einstein's 1905 work "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?" Based upon the work of Heinrich Hertz and the equations of Maxwell, the document did not describe a general derivation for E=mc2. In other words, it did not provide a comprehensive description of mass energy equivalence starting from the equations of motion that in this case would be the Lorentz Equations. Rather the 'miracle' paper was torn apart by the famous scientist Planck and others who noticed deficiencies in the original formulation. In fact, it expresses the results of a simple analysis of pulses of light to the right and to the left of a radiating object given equal energy pulses of L/2 in opposite directions. Passing the equations through momentum computations the change in an object's lost mass is the energy L/(c^2). Thus, Einstein, did not originally provide a generalized, decisive and conclusive description of mass-energy equivalence.

http://www.relativitycollapse.com/e=mc2.html

 

 

Quoting from a crackpot site doesn't mean a whole lot. The formulation was not generalized in that paper. So what? That doesn't make it untrue for the condition under which it was derived. It's unfortunate that it isn't generalized as this causes a lot of problems, since many people erroneously think that E=mc2 applies to non-stationary objects, when the original formulation is for the specific case of rest.

 

No support for the claim that Planck and others "tore it apart", so there's no detail about what details they might have objected to.

[xyzt]

 

E=mc2 | Albert Einstein

This expression appears tangentially in Einstein's 1905 work "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy Content?" Based upon the work of Heinrich Hertz and the equations of Maxwell, the document did not describe a general derivation for E=mc2. In other words, it did not provide a comprehensive description of mass energy equivalence starting from the equations of motion that in this case would be the Lorentz Equations. Rather the 'miracle' paper was torn apart by the famous scientist Planck and others who noticed deficiencies in the original formulation. In fact, it expresses the results of a simple analysis of pulses of light to the right and to the left of a radiating object given equal energy pulses of L/2 in opposite directions. Passing the equations through momentum computations the change in an object's lost mass is the energy L/(c^2). Thus, Einstein, did not originally provide a generalized, decisive and conclusive description of mass-energy equivalence.

http://www.relativitycollapse.com/e=mc2.html

Heheh, citing crank, self-published "books". Nice going, mephestopheles.

Perhaps an equation for something like that might look something like -E=(square root of "c")/m ?

Bzzt, the dimensions are all wrong

 

 

 

I am am not a physicist. I don't have the maths .

 

That much is obvious.

 

 

 

I can however describe an object in basic terms Height, width, depth and duration .

Unless I am mistaken that describes a 4 dimensional object .

So lets try describing a "D Particle as H^-infinity x W^-infinity x D^-infinity x ( T ( duration ) =1^infinity ).Without the "1" for duration I believe I would have described a physical state that doesn't exist as in ( T^ -infinity ).

Now you have a mathematical "idea" or general concept of what I mean by a Dis Integrated particle .

It isn't connected to anything else except Time.

Now multiply that particle enough times to fill an area the size of the Universe and you have the state I see as being before the Conversion of these particles into "Normal" matter began .

Perhaps a description like this [ H^-infinity x W^-infinity x D^-infinity x ( T ( duration ) =1^infinity ) ] x infinity ?

Now can you have a "little" understanding as to what I am trying to get at ?

Yep, full blown crackpot.

Edited September 25, 2014 by xyzt

[Ophiolite]

I am am not a physicist. I don't have the maths .

Perhaps we should end on this positive note, where we are all in agreement.

[mephestopheles]

Ophiolite
As I see it disagreement is a function of misunderstanding .
Not only do I not have the Mathematical language but I do speak Chinese either.
So, I'm going to assume this is a situation like that, I assume you don't speak Chinese either ?
So, why would you ask that I describe something in Chinese when you know I don't speak it ?
I described a Very large concept , a concept normally being things seen in the mind, understood in the mind ,
And conceived in the mind. I have a mind. You have a mind . Mathematics may be the language of Physics but,
I stated clearly I am not a Physicist. I am a Lay person trying to share an idea I have, as a Theory of an alternate Possibility to the Big Bang theory and consequently all that follows after that happened. I will give another example of an Idea that I have long held and described to others who caught on to it right away.
How can a Photon ( which possesses both the attributes of a Particle and Energy ) traveling at the speed "c" strike an object (lets say a brick wall ) stop, turn, and continue ( sometimes at a 180 degree angle) in the Opposite direction.
My take on it is that it does NOT stop. I goes right through the Brick wall . What is "seen" and is called Reflected light is not. It is a Vibration set up in the material of the Brick wall ( like dropping a pebble into a pond ) a Harmonic vibration which radiates excited Photons from the area of impact. But the Original Photon passes through and DOES not stop, like a Neutrino or Gamma ray .

[Strange]

As I see it disagreement is a function of misunderstanding .

 

Or disagreement can arise when one person is wrong. As you proceed to demonstrate with your comments about photons.

But while you're at it consider that Many of Einstein's equations have been found to be flawed .

 

You still haven't provided an example...

[Bignose]

My take on it is that it does NOT stop. I goes right through the Brick wall.

So then, this is easy. Shine a floodlight on a brick wall. Use a photon detector to measure the number of photons in front of the wall and behind the wall. Your idea here says that they will be equal, because the photons go right through the wall. Go perform this experiment and come back with the results.

Edited September 26, 2014 by Bignose

[mephestopheles]

Bignose,
Your test would prove me wrong I already know that.
Your saying that the Photons ( because it can act as a particle or an Energy ) , when projected on one side of the brick wall IF it passes through will be detected at the same levels on the opposite side as if it were passing through glass, correct ?
When light passes through glass it is unchanged because glass is not Opaque. Glass Is just as solid as a Brick wall though .
When light, in this theoretical state strikes the wall ( you suggested a Floodlight ) you are sending a very high level of Light in the form of Photon bundles against one side of the wall . The area affected radiates light back too you and even radiates heat due to the molecular excitement which is set up by the bombardment and it's conversion as it passes through the wall . Again consider dropping a pebble in a pond . Now consider billions of trillions on that same smooth surface . There is an Energy expenditure as it passes through. one side will radiate because of that energy expenditure , the other will not for the same reason. What will be detected on the other side of the wall will be the same level of light because it will be vibrating at the same frequency as the color spectrum normally emitted by the brick wall . The energy which is quite evidently expended on the other side of the wall will not be there because it was spent . Therefore the light exiting will not be detected at higher levels because t lacks the energy to be detected.
I have thought about for many years .
Now I have a question for you, Bignose . Is there an equation that can show what is happening when a Photon stops, reverses direction or changes angle ans "reflected" at the same speed it was traveling before the Collision. You ask for specifics. I ask for specifics. Not what is happening before or after the Impact but only what happens in that Infinitesimally small amount of time the light is striking and being reflected.
What energy level is created ? For how long ?
This page tells a lot about the whole process as it is believed to occur but does not specify what is happening precisely at the moment of reflection .
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/Reflection.html

[Strange]

Your test would prove me wrong I already know that.

 

Well, that is a refreshingly honest admission. Thank you.

 

What energy level is created ?

 

No energy is created.

 

This page tells a lot about the whole process as it is believed to occur but does not specify what is happening precisely at the moment of reflection .

http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/PY106/Reflection.html

 

That is the classical (electromagnetic wave) description. That is how I was going to answer your question.

 

If you want a more detailed description then maybe you want to look into QED:

http://vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

[Bignose]

Your test would prove me wrong I already know that.

Then why would you say that? If you already knew it, why would you deliberately post something that you already knew was wrong? Can I ask you not to do this again?

 

Is there an equation that can show what is happening when a Photon stops, reverses direction or changes angle ans "reflected" at the same speed it was traveling before the Collision.

What you are looking for the absorption of photons:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_(electromagnetic_radiation)

 

It has been studied extensively, but I am not intimately familiar with all the details on it. There appear to be many texts and articles written about it, though.

[mephestopheles]

Reply to Strange -

[Strange]

Reply to Strange -

 

1. It is a video, so I won't watch it.

 

2. It is obviously bogus because: "This video demonstrates without formulae that Einstein's "theory" of relativity is flawed"

a) The theory is not flawed

b) If it were, it would require a mathematical proof so anyone who claims to do it "without formulae" is lying or deluded.

c) It's a video

 

Why are you relying on the work of obvious cranks and trolls?

 

YOU said that Einstein's theories are flawed. So why don't YOU tell us what YOU think is wrong in YOUR OWN words (and math).

 

Or admit that you were wrong. Which would be simpler all round.

[physica]

I did look at the video and also briefly looked at the others he's hosted. It's interesting that he's disabled comments and ratings on all his videos. He also thinks that Lorentz transformations have no physical meaning. It's also interesting how the author of the video doesn't give an explanation as to why GPS works either if he thinks Einstein's theory is flawed. All the video tells me it that the author of the video can't do basic maths and doesn't understand physics.

[xyzt]

Reply to Strange -

Hilarious , I wonder why he doesn't give out his name, I know a few circuses that need good clowns.

[Bignose]

Reply to Strange -

<some video>

In contrast, please review http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377

 

This is a 113 page review of all the most current experiments and how closely they agree with the predictions made by the theory of general relativity. Spoiler alert: really well.

 

What I really don't get is why we're now talking about General Relativity. I thought we were talking about photons going through things?

Edited September 27, 2014 by Bignose