Bending or Unbending of Space

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: Nochzwei
I think Donna Hare may be telling the truth when she said she saw a picture of trees on the moon at NASA, but that doesn't mean there are trees on the moon.

Someone may have been playing a joke on her, and haven't the MJ-12 documents been proven as hoaxed? Maybe someone was playing a joke on Gordon Novel?

I don't think Gordon is referring to the hoaxed mj 12 docs and since both the videos we are talking about confirm each other's validity, I am convinced beyond doubt that Gordon is correct and that GR is all hokum. But you are free to believe as you please.

originally posted by: Nochzwei
I don't think Gordon is referring to the hoaxed mj 12 docs and since both the videos we are talking about confirm each other's validity, I am convinced beyond doubt that Gordon is correct and that GR is all hokum. But you are free to believe as you please.

So I'm free to believe thousands of scientific papers confirming general relativity with documented repeatable results, instead of two videos with no papers and no scientific results which say the thousands of papers are all wrong but don't even try to prove it?

Wow, today's my lucky day!

I can't even begin to imagine the thought process whereby two videos with no scientific evidence can convince someone that thousands of papers with lots of scientific evidence are all wrong. A psychologist reported that such cases often have little to do with scientific evidence and much more to do with releasing endorphins when people manage to convince themselves that they are smarter than all the world's smartest scientists. So they come to such conclusions because it makes them feel good, not because of careful consideration of the evidence or critical thinking.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Nochzwei

Light doesn't get 'bent'. Light goes in a straight line. It goes through the shortest distance between A and B in space-time curvature.

"I'm not so sure that curved space-time is the only possible explanation for the lensing effect. After all, that explanation does present a wide range of other issues that no one's been able to solve or make sense of."

"It has to be the only possible explanation."

"Why?"

"Because Einstein predicted it would happen."

"Yeah, but there's solid evidence that light doesn't bend around Black Holes, and they have much stronger gravitational fields around them than the Sun - or any stars for that matter."

".... but...."

"But, what?"

"...but, Einstein predicted it would happen. That the light would bend around the Sun."

"Ever hear the story of the island native who found a digital wristwatch?"

"No..."

"He examined it, applying the Scientific Method. Then, he handed it over - with his research - to the tribe's elders."

"Yeah?"

"Yeah. In the end, they killed him and buried the watch deep within a massive network of caves."

"Why?"

"Their research - including the fact that they could predict the designs to track the movements of the sun - revealed to them that the watch controls the whole of reality. It was too much power for humans to possess."

"....but..."

"But, what?"

"Einstein predicted that light would bend around the Sun."

"Oh...that again."

"He predicted it."

"Yep. He sure did."

"That means something, you know."

"Yes...it does mean something. So does the fact that bending light only happens around stars and star clusters, and that no one's ever been able to explain what the heck "space-time" is actually comprised of, since it must be a material medium or material objects wouldn't be able to "warp" it."

"....but....."

"Yeah. I know. Einstein predicted light would bend around the Sun."

"Yes he did."

a reply to: NorEaster

I couldn't figure out how we were supposed to stop time to get antigravity, but that gives me an idea...it never occurred to me to just take the battery out of the digital watch. Is that what Gordon Novel had in mind to stop time?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: NorEaster

I couldn't figure out how we were supposed to stop time to get antigravity, but that gives me an idea...it never occurred to me to just take the battery out of the digital watch. Is that what Gordon Novel had in mind to stop time?

I have no idea. All I know is that observation is only as good as your ability to interpret what you're observing. The Scientific Method is a good start, but it's only a start. Also, it can't be effectively used in isolation or without the acknowledgment that system coherence is a requirement that possesses primacy regardless of what's being observed. With system coherence comes deference to the ramifications of holon structuring and hierarchy on all systems so entangled.

Let's just say that reality is a much more comprehensive coalition of integrals than Einstein ever allowed it to be in his own late 19th century view of it. He broke new ground, but he didn't break all ground.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: NorEaster

I couldn't figure out how we were supposed to stop time to get antigravity, but that gives me an idea...it never occurred to me to just take the battery out of the digital watch. Is that what Gordon Novel had in mind to stop time?

Hey the 2 videos are nearly 7 years apart and the chances of them agreeing with this radical aspect are next to none, yet they did. So I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt of scientific reason and no because of any neurological reason.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Nochzwei
I don't think Gordon is referring to the hoaxed mj 12 docs and since both the videos we are talking about confirm each other's validity, I am convinced beyond doubt that Gordon is correct and that GR is all hokum. But you are free to believe as you please.

So I'm free to believe thousands of scientific papers confirming general relativity with documented repeatable results, instead of two videos with no papers and no scientific results which say the thousands of papers are all wrong but don't even try to prove it?

Wow, today's my lucky day!

Yes you are free to believe in GR, but you will most certainly be, believing in error.

a reply to: Nochzwei



Well I read the entire thread, watched the first video, and 7 minutes of the second video.

I guess the first thing to note is that there are a lot of people who wish to bring relativity down. It is a real cottage industry. I reviewed at Physics Essays for about 20 years, but eventually I decided to stop trying to correspond with people that were sure they were the smartest persons ever to walk the earth. I would try to point out errors, only to get back comments about how I was clearly inadequate to review their monumental works. I quit because I eventually realized I could only do so much good. If they weren't ever going to think about criticism then why was I working so hard to point it out? The thread you point me to reminds me of those days. And if I am going to review it properly I need to go in to some details.

One detail from the videos is that I used to play as a youngster with these toys that you could spin and they would fly quite high. They had internal blades and a surrounding flat ring. There was a hole in the middle. You'd wrap a string around the thing and pull hard to get it to rotate at a high speed, and the blades would make the thing fly. In the videos you present, it would be easy to have some such thing on the inside of all of the contraptions. I see in the comments above that others have pointed to some other ideas on what these things might really be. Of course it is all speculation. But the main point is this - if these are truly important inventions, what we need to see are the inner workings of them, not just some pictures of flight or some random measurements. So the videos aren't really science at all. We need far more facts, and far better measurements.

From the thread's discussion I would say that it is indeed entirely possible that gravitational lensing has nothing to do with bent space. It is entirely possible that photons are attracted gravitationally to massive objects. One could develop a theory where all of the gravitational effects predicted by GR are predicted by a new theory without bending space. Once such a theory is developed, then the issue becomes what tests can distinguish between the two theories? Then we do the tests, and we see which one better represents nature. That is how science goes. But in the thread I really don't see much of any of that kind of reasoning. Instead it is mostly high level conclusions and references but not really any nuts and bolts data and math. In science one needs data and math. Now I have looked a bit into GR and I found it quite difficult, so I would expect it is asking a lot to do the needed data and math to come up with an alternative. But that is what is needed.

I also want to clarify my issue with relativity. As for me, when I've questioned relativity I have not questioned the Lorentz Equations. I design accelerators, both relativistic and non-relativistic. I use the Lorentz Equations all the time, and without them accelerators would not work. The problem with relativity versus Lorentz's theory is pretty subtle, and very few people know the difference. And the difference is this - with Einstein time and space themselves transform when you move, whereas with Lorentz your measuring appartus is what gets changed. This leads to the issue that with Einstein there is no absoulte simultaneity, while with Lorentz there is. With Lorentz time and space are always separate things - time is time, space is space. With Einstein spatial separations for me become a mix of spatial and temporal separations for someone moving with respect to me. But importantly, the Lorentz equations represent nature in both cases!

So if the Lorentz equations are the same in both theories, how can we tell which one is best? This question was addressed by Einstein, Podolski and Rosen, which led to the great John Steward Bell's refinement, which led to tests, which favored Lorentz.

If special relativity is wrong, it is possible general relativity is as well. However I am not an expert in the general theory. I had read in more than one place that if special relativity is wrong, general relativity was wrong too. But those assertions were always made by people that were sure the special theory was right. So I am not at all sure that the EPR tests really doom GR. And since I am not an expert there, that will have to do for my thoughts on this matter.

a reply to: delbertlarson

thanks yr reply. yes the first video could be internal rotating blades. but you need to watch the other 2 to get the context of the thread and also take a look at www.scribd.com...

Oh wow! You know they say that in soviet Russia gravity bends you, obviously at the least for the guy in the second video his experiment is faulty because it was missing a crucial detail, that crucial detail being that it looks like he was in India somewhere, may have worked if he did in in Russia, sometimes the laws of the universe need not apply there. Who knows right.

Besides losing what 4 grams? How can we be sure that all that buzzing the Garfield box was doing did not just drop some dust of it because of the noise and vibration thereby contributing to the so called mystery of the lost 4 grams and anti gravitational abilities? That or it burned some grams in gas or whatever fuel it was using from all that buzzing it was doing for however something odd minutes it was buzzing away.

As for the first video? Wow, they even tried to do the whole little box copter thing all in old grainy film filter just like the real flying saucer videos, and no sound? Just like in a real saucer video. How cool is that? Amazing lack of video technology there for people claiming to have discovered a way to bend gravity using new technology.

I give them a thumps up for adding in those little effect in that video to make it more believable. But anyways wish I would have found this thread when it was first posted up, it would have been a hell of a lot more funnier then. Now its only but a minor amusement.

Sad days indeed.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

Lol yr calculation sucs Its 4 Kilograms lost.
Anyway all this cutting edge science is probably way over your head
have a nice day nonetheless

If I walk to the beach and spit in the ocean, I have just raised sea level. That is a fact. But I cannot measure how much I have raised sea level, because I can't measure 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 inches.

I just don't have the tools to do that. Mankind doesn't have the tools to do that. So we call it 'irrelevant.'

So it is with the experiments. Yes, spacetime was 'curved' (actually was in motion from the mass), but to such a small degree compared to the speed of light that we can't measure the effects. To see gravitational lensing requires extremely precise measurement around extremely massive masses... stars, galaxies, clusters, etc.

Even planets are all but impossible to see results around.

Beware of getting your physics from YouTube. There are some accurate videos, but many (most) are poppycock.

Oh, and someone earlier mentioned we can't feel spacetime like we would feel water in a river slowing our movements... yes we do. It's called 'gravity.'

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

you can rest assured gravity is not a result of curved spacetime. it is impossible to bend space

a reply to: Nochzwei
You sure? I was pretty sure he said grams, but hey. You could be right and it the 2 minutes it would take to play that vid and fast forward to the points were he was talking about his little scale thing. Well seems like a waste of time.

a reply to: Nochzwei

Probably just a problem of verbiage, why don't they just say mass and energies of the universe displaces space and time instead of bends spacetime. I mean that's just so 2D and silly sounding.

And since when has spacetime become some sort of self contained thing in itself? What did space and time pull a Voltron when I was not looking and combine to make the ultimate weapon of the universe called spacetime? What is it a magical more profound version of space and time which are two distinct measuring tools somehow blended into one with new and awesome magical properties?

a reply to: Nochzwei

You are free to believe what you wish. I would be interested on hearing your hypothesis on the cause of gravity.

TheRedneck

Space-time is not really 'bending' like we think of it, say like a bamboo plank. The photon follows what is called 'the geodesic'.

It is not really like we see represented with the bowling ball on a trampoline. That's just a representation to help us visualize.

Also the OP's posted 'experiment' is a hoax. Not sure where they got it.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Nochzwei

You are free to believe what you wish. I would be interested on hearing your hypothesis on the cause of gravity.

TheRedneck

cause of gravity is the time and dark matter compression curves around a mass

originally posted by: Maverick7
Space-time is not really 'bending' like we think of it, say like a bamboo plank. The photon follows what is called 'the geodesic'.

It is not really like we see represented with the bowling ball on a trampoline. That's just a representation to help us visualize.

Also the OP's posted 'experiment' is a hoax. Not sure where they got it.

einsteins geodesic is a lot of humbug. pl watch the ark video and gordon novels video posted

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: Maverick7
Space-time is not really 'bending' like we think of it, say like a bamboo plank. The photon follows what is called 'the geodesic'.

It is not really like we see represented with the bowling ball on a trampoline. That's just a representation to help us visualize.

Also the OP's posted 'experiment' is a hoax. Not sure where they got it.

einsteins geodesic is a lot of humbug. pl watch the ark video and gordon novels video posted

It's not Einstein's geodesic and as far as humbug, it's a theory, as opposed to being 'flakey pseudoscience'. HTH