Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: Omaughuntinaser on 27/03/2014 12:35:19
-
Yes, Einstein's theories are obsolete,
First, he stole a lot from other without referencing etc especially the works of Poincare en Lorenz. So, he plagiarized! That is, Einstein was a thief! a commen cheap thief.
Furthermore, the theorie is completely wrong and there is really no need for it in
equipment etc.
There is NO experimental evidence what so ever that is right.
For that matter, nothing good has come out yet of 'the so called 'modern physics'!
Or can anyone name some?
And yes I know the official fairy tales, but most are just plain simple wrong.
So as far as I am concerned it is exit the relativity hoax and exit the whole of 'modern science' especially with regards to physics.
-
Would your opinions be anyway influenced by the fact that Einstein was Jewish ? they are the sort of comments I would expect to hear from the neo nazi's
-
Would your opinions be anyway influenced by the fact that Einstein was Jewish ? they are the sort of comments I would expect to hear from the neo nazi's
no, no, no what an idiotic response! it has nothing to with that.
I am only talking about facts.
-
Einstein made it very clear where he got his ideas from and was therefore no thief. I can see two good reasons for attacking him (he wasn't a great family man, and he allowed Lorentz to be sidelined even though both men's theories were viable), but your attack is over the top. Your attack is really on science as a whole though, suggesting that you may have some other motivation and are picking on Einstein because you see him as its figurehead. Whatever the case, your thread is destructive rather than constructive and has no place on this forum.
-
Isaac Newton said*:
If I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants.
So it is well accepted in science and mathematics that you build on the work of others.
The same goes for art, literature, language, theater and music (provided it isn't a blatant copy).
So you must judge an innovator by what they have added to what already exists- and what they have ignored from the accepted wisdom. Bear in mind that if you jump too far beyond what is already known, nobody will understand the work, and they will be written off as a crackpot (see the tragedy of the mathematician Galois, whose work we now use every day in our mobile phones, computers, etc).
Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Scientific_career) synthesised work that was already known into:
- A theory on the photoelectric effect (which won him the Nobel prize, and was one of the starting points for quantum theory on which most of our modern electronic conveniences are based)
- The Michelson-Morley experiment (from which he produced the theory of relativity, gravitational lensing, and is a significant contributor to the accuracy of the GPS that many of us use when visiting an unfamiliar address)
- He had an uncanny ability to visualise the results of experiments which were impossible to conduct. With the help of others, he turned this into mathematics that other physicists could apply.
- In his later life, he played a role in developing the atomic bomb, and then trying to prevent its proliferation...
- His biggest mistake was the Cosmological Constant (as he himself acknowledged) but is the basis for today's theories about the Big Bang, Dark Energy and Cosmic Inflation. This is truly "snatching victory from the jaws of defeat"**.
- Even today, it is a bold theoretician who bets that Einstein was wrong. But nobody suggests that his work is complete (especially in the area of quantum gravity and black holes).
In today's internet-connected world, it is possible to Google the answer to almost any question you can ask. This has led to considerable plagiarism of homework assignments. But it also allows for tools which locate copied content - within the same class, from previous years, or from anywhere on the internet. So we will all be judged by what we can add to the already known.
But creative and non-conformist geniuses like Einstein, Newton and Galois will still stand out above the crowd. To help spot these individuals, look for Nobel laureates, or winners of the Fields medal in mathematics.
*Only Newton stole this proverb from Bernard of Chartres, who took it from John of Salisbury...
**Terminology often wrongly attributed to Abraham Lincoln
-
Einstein made it very clear where he got his ideas from and was therefore no thief.
No, he didn't do that, that's the whole point.
Yes, he was a thief.
I can see two good reasons for attacking him (he wasn't a great family man, and he allowed Lorentz to be sidelined even though both men's theories were viable), but your attack is over the top.
Over the top? I can understand that if you read about this for the first time, however, it is even much worse than what I wrote here.
Your attack is really on science as a whole though, suggesting that you may have some other motivation and are picking on Einstein because you see him as its figurehead. Whatever the case, your thread is destructive rather than constructive and has no place on this forum.
wow! Lots of 'jumping to conclusions here in a very very irrational way.
Yes, I attack science as a whole because especially 'modern science' stinks and hasn't brought us any good at all ( especially in relation with physics, but there is more)
And thread 'destructive" Really? for telling the truth??
And so, the truth has no place on this forum? Come on now, be reasonable.
I am not attacking for the fun of it. It is all about the truth and if I am being wrong. well, simply show me!
I would say to you "You protest too much'
-
So you must judge an innovator by what they have added to what already exists- and what they have ignored from the accepted wisdom. Bear in mind that if you jump too far beyond what is already known, nobody will understand the work, and they will be written off as a crackpot (see the tragedy of the mathematician Galois, whose work we now use every day in our mobile phones, computers, etc).
Well, you twist it a little, it is not about standing of the shoulders of giants but something else, but well, that is for later.
]A theory on the photoelectric effect (which won him the Nobel prize, and was one of the starting points for quantum theory on which most of our modern electronic conveniences are based)
yes, I know the official fairy tales. However, modern electronics is NOT build on quantum theory at all.
The Michelson-Morley experiment (from which he produced the theory of relativity, gravitational lensing, and is a significant contributor to the accuracy of the GPS that many of us use when visiting an unfamiliar address)
I am rather familiar with this fairy tale. there is no need for relativity therory for GPS.it is a myth,.
And there is lot more to say about the Michelson-Morley experiment , just do a search in Google.
He had an uncanny ability to visualise the results of experiments which were impossible to conduct. With the help of others, he turned this into mathematics that other physicists could apply.
There is something very strange with him about physics and mathematics., it was more a magick trick.And o yes, space curvature is impossible to the hundred degree!
[In his later life, he played a role in developing the atomic bomb, and then trying to prevent its proliferation...
Yes, he was a hypocrite, and again, you don't need Einstein and his theories for the atom bomb as well.
In today's internet-connected world, it is possible to Google the answer to almost any question you can ask. This has led to considerable plagiarism of homework assignments. But it also allows for tools which locate copied content - within the same class, from previous years, or from anywhere on the internet. So we will all be judged by what we can add to the already known.
duh? what are you saying here?
But creative and non-conformist geniuses like Einstein, Newton and Galois will still stand out above the crowd. To help spot these individuals, look for Nobel laureates, or winners of the Fields medal in mathematics.
well, who invented the radio, wireless radio, light and on it goes...?
*Only Newton stole this proverb from Bernard of Chartres, who took it from John of Salisbury...
well, Newton as also not someone we think he was.
You see, the only thing you are doing is repeating hhe official story you have been spoonfed!
It really is about this:
Science = Indoctrination
Contrary to popular belief, scientific education does not require any intelligent thought, it's about "remembering" what science taught you. It's this remembering that makes you feel smart - even if you're not.
-
scientific education does not require any intelligent thought, it's about "remembering" what science taught you. It's this remembering that makes you feel smart - even if you're not.
This comment does have a point - but unfortunately, it tells us more about science education (and education in general) than it does about science.
Most subjects - like mathematics, history, literature, religion and science are frequently taught as learning facts which you can then regurgitate on command.
Fortunately, some students do actually learn to make deductions from these facts which they then successfully apply in new contexts. This is a better test of education than just being able to repeat facts in an exam - or in updating the company's accounts, or when you land an aeroplane, or in the operating theater.
But to be really remembered in science (or in many other fields), you need to achieve something that has not been achieved before. People like Hawking, Einstein, Newton, Gallilieo and Pythagoras are definitely in this category.
To see the importance of Einstein's relativity in GPS, lets apply some of the rote learning of high school in a new context:
- The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are intentionally set about 36 microseconds slow on Earth, so they will be precisely correct when they reach operational orbit.
- A large part of this correction is due to time running slower when you are moving very quickly in Earth orbit, ofset by the fact that time moves more slowly when you are on the surface of the Earth, in a gravitational field. Both of these factors first arise in Einstein's theory of relativity
- Without this correction, your position as calculated by GPS would have an error of about 10 km on the first day (and increasing by similar amounts each day). This means that it would be effectively impossible to solve the equations to determine your position in space and time.
- This is far worse than the actual performance which is usually within 100m.
- The 10km comes from the fact that the speed of light in air is just slightly slower than the speed of light in a vacuum, at about 3x108 m/s. In 36 microseconds, the signals from the satellite will travel about 10km.
-
To see the importance of Einstein's relativity in GPS[/color], lets apply some of the rote learning of high school in a new context:
- The atomic clocks in the GPS satellites are intentionally set about 36 microseconds slow on Earth, so they will be precisely correct when they reach operational orbit.
- A large part of this correction is due to time running slower when you are moving very quickly in Earth orbit, ofset by the fact that time moves more slowly when you are on the surface of the Earth, in a gravitational field. Both of these factors first arise in Einstein's theory of relativity
- Without this correction, your position as calculated by GPS would have an error of about 10 km on the first day (and increasing by similar amounts each day). This means that it would be effectively impossible to solve the equations to determine your position in space and time.
- This is far worse than the actual performance which is usually within 100m.
- The 10km comes from the fact that the speed of light in air is just slightly slower than the speed of light in a vacuum, at about 3x108 m/s. In 36 microseconds, the signals from the satellite will travel about 10km.
GPS really doesn't require relativity theory at all!.it is just very simply not needed.
and a lot of relativity is nothing more than a hoax, e.g curvature of space is ridiculous to say the least.
Another thing, there is actually no experimental evidence of relativistic theories at all.
Yes I know, in the textbooks you can learn about experiments who would validate the theory, however, on closer scrutiny they are really very wrong, and lots of problems with them.
-
curvature of space is ridiculous to say the least
I agree that the curvature of space is non-intuitive to most people.
Bending of light by the Sun was predicted by classical physics. But Einstein gave a mathematical basis to show that it was a fundamental aspect of the universe. It was demonstrated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun) just a few years later by Eddington, in 1919.
We now see examples of it all around the universe, in gravitational lensing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens).
Are Einstein's theories obsolete?
Some would suggest that Hawking's work on the interaction of quantum theory and relativity extends Einstein's work to new areas, like close to the event horizon of a black hole. But Einstein's work has proved remarkably accurate throughout most of the universe (that we can measure).
- Hawking's work does not obsolete Einstein's, since Hawking agrees with Einstein under most conditions.
- Einstein's work does not obsolete Newton's work on gravity, since Einstein agrees with Newton for most of the planets and comets (with a small correction for Mercury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury)).
- Newton's work on gravity does not obsolete Galileo's work on gravity, since Newton agrees with Galileo for objects which are falling in a vacuum near the surface of the Earth (or the Moon, or the Sun) - in other words, in most circumstances that are accessible to us.
- The laws of gravity that most of us learnt in high school are actually Galilieo's laws - they are easy to calculate, and somewhat easy to measure by dropping things off buildings. And if you are not into rocket science, you don't need Newton's laws; if you aren't doing cosmology, you don't need the curvature of space, either. Ridiculous and non-intuitive does not imply that it is useless or wrong.
PS: Unless the LHC suddenly produces a few quantum black holes in the next few years, Hawking is unlikely to receive a Nobel prize, since the rules dictate that the work must be verified and the award presented while the recipient is still alive. Einstein's work had the advantage that it made predictions that could be verified within our own solar system. (Astronomers hope to get their first peek at the galactic black hole over the next few months.)
-
I agree that the curvature of space is non-intuitive to most people.
I am not only talking abou it being non-intuitive, there is more to it.
Bending of light by the Sun was predicted by classical physics. But Einstein gave a mathematical basis to show that it was a fundamental aspect of the universe. It was demonstrated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun) just a few years later by Eddington, in 1919.
We now see examples of it all around the universe, in gravitational lensing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens).
There are a lot of things wrong with the 'experiments' done by Eddington etc. You could at least say the data was 'massaged'
No, it really is no proof ot relativity theories if you look at the experiment.
Hawking's work does not obsolete Einstein's, since Hawking agrees with Einstein under most conditions.
Who cares if Hawkins beliefs this? That is just an 'appeal on authority', while it is very simple to see that there
is no backbone for the relativity theories. I don't care what Hawkins is saying.
He is just not a very good an honest thinker.
[Einstein's work does not obsolete Newton's work on gravity, since Einstein agrees with Newton for most of the planets and comets (with a small correction for Mercury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury)).
Ok, well, lat that be for now, but there is more to it.
Newton's work on gravity does not obsolete Galileo's work on gravity, since Newton agrees with Galileo for objects which are falling in a vacuum near the surface of the Earth (or the Moon, or the Sun) - in other words, in most circumstances that are accessible to us.[/li]
[li]The laws of gravity that most of us learnt in high school are actually Galilieo's laws - they are easy to calculate, and somewhat easy to measure by dropping things off buildings. And if you are not into rocket science, you don't need Newton's laws; if you aren't doing cosmology, you don't need the curvature of space, either. Ridiculous and non-intuitive does not imply that it is useless or wrong.
I agree that non-intuitive and ridiculous does not mean that is wrong. That is also not the basis of why I am writing this.
I don't accept them not because they are non-intuitive and ridiculous. I am saying that because it really is plane wrong.
PS: Unless the LHC suddenly produces a few quantum black holes in the next few years, Hawking is unlikely to receive a Nobel prize, since the rules dictate that the work must be verified and the award presented while the recipient is still alive. Einstein's work had the advantage that it made predictions that could be verified within our own solar system. (Astronomers hope to get their first peek at the galactic black hole over the next few months.)
Don't get me started on the nobel-prize because a lot of people are liars and stole a lot from the real 'scientist' and 'inventors"
Furtheremore I know some people who really should have given the nobel prize. But eh... it isn't worth much this day anymore,
because , well, if the weirdo and very narcistic Obama gets a nobel prize for peace then there is something fundamental wrong witth this prize!
-
You're hilarious.
-
You're hilarious.
that may be so, but can you explain then at least why I am hilarious?
-
Don't get me started...
I would like to get you started, like documenting some evidence for the claims that:
- "[Einstein's] theorie is completely wrong"
- "NO experimental evidence what so ever that [Einsteins theory] is right"
- "there is actually no experimental evidence of relativistic theories at all"- so please explain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
- "space curvature is impossible to the hundred degree"
- "[Einstein's theory] really is plane wrong"
today's internet-connected world allows for tools which locate copied content
duh? what are you saying here?
I am saying that the same quotation also appeared on the New Atlantis website.
And similar empty criticisms of science also appeared on Rational Skepticism and Debatepolitics discussion boards (I can't comment on the Dutch-language website).
So, please support your position with some factual content!
-
So, please support your position with some factual content!
Well, shouldn't it be the other way around?
If Einstein's theories are accepted there must be some sort of experimental
proof. Really, there is none, that is adequate enough.
well, come on then, show me.
for that matter, nothing good has come out of 'modern physcis' as well, nothing at all!
or can you name some?
as long as you can't it is just proof that relativity theory is very very wrong.
(the same as QM is very very wrong)
-
for that matter, nothing good has come out of 'modern physcis' as well, nothing at all!
or can you name some?
The large amount of memory on our smart devices has been made possible by Electrically-Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM), a technology made possible by quantum tunneling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_electron_emission).
This huge memory capacity has permitted replacement of "classical" music players (with spinning vinyl) by portable music players with thousands of times more capacity. It has also permitted the storage of road maps for an entire nation on a portable GPS receiver, and download of "Apps" to smartphones. The ubiquitous "USB stick" has largely replaced the traditional floppy disk and recordable CD.
Although the original Fowler-Nordheim equations were developed in 1928, the results of the theory were not very accurate in semiconductors until recent application of Schrödinger's Equations, for a thoroughly modern implementation.
-
Well I use E=mc2 at work most days, and the equation seems to hold well enough to diagnose and treat cancers. And if it wasn't for the application of relativistic corrections to satellite time signals, I wouldn't be able to use GPS navigation to fly to the job.
Not too sure what you mean by "modern physics" but I find the depletion layer of semiconductor junctions very convenient for measuring the photons generated by my positron emission cameras, and most patients seem to enjoy the benefits of superconducting magnets in my MRI machines. Useless? Probably: whatever my machines diagnose, and however neatly the surgeons excise it (using one of those modern laser thingies, as described by that Einstein bloke) they will eventually die from something else.
Don't forget to reduce your electricity consumption by at least 20%. You don't want to be dependent on modern physics via nuclear power, after all.
-
The large amount of memory on our smart devices has been made possible by Electrically-Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM), a technology made possible by quantum tunneling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_electron_emission).
are you sure? or are you just parroting the 'official line'?
Although the original Fowler-Nordheim equations were developed in 1928, the results of the theory were not very accurate in semiconductors until recent application of Schrödinger's Equations, for a thoroughly modern implementation.
are you sure? or are you just parroting the 'official line'?
you see, semi conductors were developed before quantum mechanics.
-
and so it is with the whole of 'modern science' (especially with regards to physics)
There is nothing good that have come out of it, nor will it ,be because it is designed not to work.
-
Well I use E=mc2 at work most days, and the equation seems to hold well enough to diagnose and treat cancers.
I don't know nothing about this subject with regards to the formula and cancer. , but if you work at a mainstream hospital or whatever
I know for sure they are not there to treat cancer.yes, I know they say they do.But this then becomes a totally different subject.
And if it wasn't for the application of relativistic corrections to satellite time signals, I wouldn't be able to use GPS navigation to fly to the job.
I have said this before, the relativistic correction is not needed at all! it is a myth.
Not too sure what you mean by "modern physics" but I find the depletion layer of semiconductor junctions very convenient for measuring the photons generated by my positron emission cameras,
I will define 'modern physics, when Einsten started his relativity hoax.That was the moment it went all wrong.And as I have written above, semiconductors were
discovered and made before 'modern physics'
and most patients seem to enjoy the benefits of superconducting magnets in my MRI machines.
MRI machines? oh my god!!! do you really really think they are good?????? and enjoy????
You must be a quack! or an assistent to a quack (=mainstream doctor or something?)
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/health/mris-often-overused-often-mislead-doctors-warn.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/health/mris-often-overused-often-mislead-doctors-warn.html?_r=0)
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmrimetaldetector.com%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F06%2Fcropped-MRI-scanner-eats-patient-bed.jpg&hash=42558ec8eb752673566f6da582574f58)
Useless? Probably: whatever my machines diagnose, and however neatly the surgeons excise it (using one of those modern laser thingies, as described by that Einstein bloke) they will eventually die from something else.
????????, o my god, you probaly think vaccines are safe too?????
Don't forget to reduce your electricity consumption by at least 20%. You don't want to be dependent on modern physics via nuclear power, after all.
There are a lot of other ways,very very cheap, but all are surpressed. e.g. free energy units (over unity)
yeah yeah yah I know the laws of thermodynamics. well, are they, ' fixed laws'? offcourse not!
-
A few questions btw, who has developed or invented the following:
electric light, wireless transmission, x-ray, radio?
-
oh and with regards to the MRI, this also was invented way before the relativity and quantum hoaxes.
-
The list of science topics and research you believe are fraudulent hoaxes is quite extensive, Omaughuntinaser. What do you think is the motive behind all these sinister plots?
-
The list of science topics and research you believe are fraudulent hoaxes is quite extensive, Omaughuntinaser. What do you think is the motive behind all these sinister plots?
you are right and a first I didn't believe it my self,
One of the motives is indoctrination, so people won't think for themselves,
so they can be better controlled.
'science' is just an control tool. Designed when religion weren't that good any more for controlling people.
I know it might sound bizarre, and is a whole other thread for that matter, but it really is not about if it is bizarre, strange, out there, etc etc. the only think that counts is, is it true? but for here and now I stick with the more then ridiculous
relativity theorie.
o and btw I don't believe them to be hoaxes, it is very easy to discover that they are hoaxes, but one need an open mind.
-
you are right and a first I didn't believe it my self,
One of the motives is indoctrination, so people won't think for themselves,
so they can be better controlled.
'science' is just an control tool. Designed when religion weren't that good any more for controlling people.
I know it might sound bizarre, and is a whole other thread for that matter, but it really is not about if it is bizarre, strange, out there, etc etc. the only think that counts is, is it true? but for here and now I stick with the more then ridiculous
relativity theorie.
o and btw I don't believe them to be hoaxes, it is very easy to discover that they are hoaxes, but one need an open mind.
Are the people who instigate these scientific hoaxes working independently for their own reasons, or are they connected? For example, are the people perpetrating the vaccine hoax associated with the those disseminating false information about relativity? Are they aware of each others deception, or are they, too, targets or dupes of the others hoax?
-
Are the people who instigate these scientific hoaxes working independently for their own reasons, or are they connected? For example, are the people perpetrating the vaccine hoax associated with the those disseminating false information about relativity? Are they aware that of each others deception, or are they, too, targets or dupes of the others hoax?
Well, the 'lower levels don't know and just assume all is well. It is all compartimentalized. Like a pyramid.Or russian dolls in dolls if you like.Like a clerk in a bank doesn't know what is going on at the higher levels. ( btw banks are part of the hoaxes as well!)
But, yes, at the top of this pyramid are the people who know about all these scams. If you try to bother, and look into this scams, they have all the same 'blueprint', written all over it. That is because the same people are making these
hoaxes.
Actually, it is interesting, but should need a whole new thread, that the more you look into this all,. it becomes simpler and simpler and you can start to discover that
it looks like a giant magician trick which is at its core very very simple, but
there is a lot of smoke & mirror to distract and hide what is going on.
But I digress ;)
-
Theories should be obsolete !
Why should people be happy with just a theory ?
If it is just a theory, then it can obviously not be completely or absolutely understood. Thus it has not become irrefutable since "belief" is still part of the picture.
However, if you start from an absolute, and work your way up, then this provides an absolute foundation to support whatever you have uncovered via your exploration.
For example, if you explore the simple idea of absolute motion, and this absolute motion takes place within an absolute 4 dimensional environment called Space-Time, your completely independent outcome is a complete understanding of Special Relativity along with a completely independent creation of all of the Special Relativity equations. No education in physics is required other than hearing of the idea that light is the fastest speed possible. Proof of this is found at http://goo.gl/fz4R0I ( 1 hour 39 min. total length )
Unfortunately, even though one can fully encompass Special Relativity via ones independent investigation of the absolute foundation, as a characteristic of Special Relativity this absolute foundation can not be detected. Thus such exploration is confined to being limited to a one way trip. Since these absolutes are undetectable, they were considered to be of no importance, thus they were quickly thrown out the window. Relativity was then accepted as being the all important rather than the absolute being considered to be the all important. The lessor was considered to have clearly outsized the greater !
Thus when absolute explanations are being asked, absolute answers in general are not being given, since absolutes are consider to be of no importance. Thus we are stuck with "THEORIES".
-
Theories should be obsolete !
Why should people be happy with just a theory ?
Thus when absolute explanations are being asked, absolute answers in general are not being given, since absolutes are consider to be of no importance. Thus we are stuck with "THEORIES".
The word "theory" in science has a different meaning from it's everyday-use where people say "theory" when they actually mean "hypothesis".
Scientific theories have been repeatedly tested by experiment / observation ...
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
-
oh and with regards to the MRI, this also was invented way before the relativity and quantum hoaxes.
No. I sometimes work with the inventor of MRI, Raymond Damadian. Hell of a nice guy, and we have a lot of fun as well as doing some serious medical engineering. He's a few years older than me, but he wasn't born when relativity and quantum mechanics were first described.
If you get ill, don't bother to turn up at any of my clinics. We use quantum physics and relativity to diagnose and treat patients every day, and you wouldn't want to be healed by a hoax, would you?
-
The word "theory" in science has a different meaning from it's everyday-use where people say "theory" when they actually mean "hypothesis".
Scientific theories have been repeatedly tested by experiment / observation ...
Round and round you go, in a never ending circle, never interested in the actual truth. "It seems to be correct, via the outcome of the test results." is still accepted as being the "up to scientific snuff.", "the appeasing.", "the comfortable.", "the enough.". And so decades pass by as the (GUT) remains at a distance, all thanks to the dedicated folk being happy with less than completeness, thus being happy with less than complete truth.
This is why I made a point via my videos. The point was that if you do NOT accept less than truth, thus you do NOT practice beliefs, but instead explore the truth, anyone can figure out Einsteins Special Relativity entirely on their own. It is pure child's play.
Other than taking into account the idea that the speed of light is the fastest speed possible, no education in the field of physics is required at all to have independently figured out, and thus understood, Special Relativity. Nor is any education in the field of physics required to independently derive all of the SR equations. Once again, it is pure child's play.
-
... anyone can figure out Einsteins Special Relativity entirely on their own. It is pure child's play.
The simplicity or complexity of a scientific theory is irrelevant, the only important property is : does it correspond with reality ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
If you think you have a "theory of everything" you're probably wrong ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything#Arguments_against_a_theory_of_everything
-
... anyone can figure out Einsteins Special Relativity entirely on their own. It is pure child's play.
The simplicity or complexity of a scientific theory is irrelevant, the only important property is : does it correspond with reality ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
If you think you have a "theory of everything" you're probably wrong ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything#Arguments_against_a_theory_of_everything
Sorry, I'm not into theories.
-
Sorry, I'm not into theories.
I can kind of tell.
The absolutes you want are simply not available to any empirically based system of knowledge. Science is nothing if not empirical. You might be disturbed by the fact that we never do "better" than "This theory has faced test after test and never been disproven." I think the track record of what humanity has learned in the past few centuries with this "imperfect" level of certainty is evidence enough of its utility.
Of course, that notion of mine is another non-absolute (I don't even pretend it reaches the level of a theory), so I expect that it is in your eyes at least equally invalid as the products of science.
-
Sorry, I'm not into theories.
I can kind of tell.
The absolutes you want are simply not available to any empirically based system of knowledge. Science is nothing if not empirical. You might be disturbed by the fact that we never do "better" than "This theory has faced test after test and never been disproven." I think the track record of what humanity has learned in the past few centuries with this "imperfect" level of certainty is evidence enough of its utility.
Of course, that notion of mine is another non-absolute (I don't even pretend it reaches the level of a theory), so I expect that it is in your eyes at least equally invalid as the products of science.
Like I said...If you explore the simple idea of absolute motion, and this absolute motion takes place within an absolute 4 dimensional environment called Space-Time, your completely independent outcome is a complete understanding of Special Relativity along with a completely independent creation of all of the Special Relativity equations. No education in physics is required other than hearing of the idea that light is the fastest speed possible. Proof of this is found at http://goo.gl/fz4R0I ( 1 hour 39 min. total length )
Thus even if all the knowledge you have in the world of physics is test results showing that the speed of light is the fastest speed possible, by just using your head you can figure out SR on your own, and you do so without even knowing that SR would be the outcome in the first place. You simply started at ground level concerning motion, thus you need not know much more than a cave man, and then you work your way up. In turn, by starting with the absolutes, your understanding of SR is as complete as it can get.
-
Special relativity which relates time to space is good.
General relativity which relates time to space and tries to fit gravitation is pseudoscience.
How does one bend that which does not have any properties?
I'm going with Tesla on this.
-
Yes, Einstein's theories are obsolete,
First, he stole a lot from other without referencing etc especially the works of Poincare en Lorenz. So, he plagiarized! That is, Einstein was a thief! a commen cheap thief.
Furthermore, the theorie is completely wrong and there is really no need for it in
equipment etc.
There is NO experimental evidence what so ever that is right.
For that matter, nothing good has come out yet of 'the so called 'modern physics'!
Or can anyone name some?
And yes I know the official fairy tales, but most are just plain simple wrong.
So as far as I am concerned it is exit the relativity hoax and exit the whole of 'modern science' especially with regards to physics.
Why didn't you post any facts to prove your claims?
-
Wait.. Einstein theories WERE wrong.. but no one discusses those theories..
"There is not the slightest inclination that atomic energy will ever be possible".. - Wrong
"God does not throw dice" on quantum theory - believed to be wrong
“Your calculations are correct, but your physics is abominable” on the big bang - Widely believed to be wrong
Oh wait you mean his work that is widely accepted by scientists to be works of genius that (although need a little polishing and tweaking here and there) are the foundation of modern technology and knowledge.. and offer your argument with less proof than we have of bacon flavoured sausages?
-
Yes, Einstein's theories are obsolete,
I hadn't noticed this thread until now but I can see why I didn't bother if I did, i.e. it's all nonsense. For example;
First, he stole a lot from other without referencing etc especially the works of Poincare en Lorenz. So, he plagiarized! That is, Einstein was a thief! a commen cheap thief.
It's a well-known fact among scholars that Einstein never plagiarized anything. The law of relativity, i.e. that all laws are the same in all frames of reference, has been around for a very long time and Poincare was not the first one to use it. There are a great number of these kinds of facts about Einstein's work that nutjobs like the author of this thread clearly isn't aware of. What Poincare and Lorentz did is not the same thing as what Einstein did. This is well documented too in the article the mystery of the einstein poincaré connection
Furthermore, the theorie is completely wrong and there is really no need for it in
equipment etc.
Lie rooted in ignorance.
There is NO experimental evidence what so ever that is right.
Another lie rooted in ignorance.
For that matter, nothing good has come out yet of 'the so called 'modern physics'!
Another lie and clearly this person has a great deal of ignorance about physics.
Or can anyone name some?
Electronics, lasers, the GPS system, satellite communication, computers, cell phones, etc etc etc.
And yes I know the official fairy tales, but most are just plain simple wrong.
So as far as I am concerned it is exit the relativity hoax and exit the whole of 'modern science' especially with regards to physics.
This person is a major crackpot and should be ignored forever.
-
I will answer this according to the title of the topic. It is more than obvious that not many of you understand Einstein or science or theory.
Einstein was a very clever man, a thinker, a thinker that helped us advance in science, if Einstein were here today he would admit that all his ideas and thoughts were not perfect in every detail, but the aim of science is to advance on those thoughts, those thoughts can never be obsolete, these thoughts are science and give us GPS etc, these thoughts land rovers on a moving comet. The problem is definition, not Einstein.
-
I opened up this topic again as it seems that there are lot of people who think that Einstein possibly was mistaken. Details as above mentioned are very important...if the details fail the whole house of cards will crumble down.
I also want to point out that Einstein and theory of relativity sells well...so science writers make things more interesting if they say for istance that three stars around a black hole prove theory of relativity to be correct.
In my opinion the black hole is just a massive star that had so great gravity that it cannot emit any light. Light having particle nature will be sucked in sorta.
Am I wrong ?
-
I opened up this topic again as it seems that there are lot of people who think that Einstein possibly was mistaken. Details as above mentioned are very important...if the details fail the whole house of cards will crumble down.
I also want to point out that Einstein and theory of relativity sells well...so science writers make things more interesting if they say for istance that three stars around a black hole prove theory of relativity to be correct.
In my opinion the black hole is just a massive star that had so great gravity that it cannot emit any light. Light having particle nature will be sucked in sorta.
Am I wrong ?
It's not a bad analogy.
And, when it comes down to it, we don't have a detailed understanding of black holes.
The fundamental problem with this thread is that the OP is simply wrong.
Teh most obvious error is this
There is NO experimental evidence what so ever that is right.
Well, the OP may not understand it, but every time you use GPS to find your way round you are experimentally verifying special relativity.