[Omaughuntinaser (OP)]

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.

[syhprum]

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 

[Omaughuntinaser (OP)]

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.

[David Cooper]

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.

[evan_au]

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 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

[Omaughuntinaser (OP)]

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'

[Omaughuntinaser (OP)]

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.

[evan_au]

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.
  

[Omaughuntinaser (OP)]

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.

[evan_au]

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 just a few years later by Eddington, in 1919.
We now see examples of it all around the universe, in gravitational lensing.

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).
  
• 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.)

[Omaughuntinaser (OP)]

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 just a few years later by Eddington, in 1919.
We now see examples of it all around the universe, in gravitational lensing.

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).

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!

[cheryl j]

You're hilarious.

[Omaughuntinaser (OP)]

You're hilarious.

that may be so, but can you explain then at least why I am hilarious?

[evan_au]

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!

[Omaughuntinaser (OP)]

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)

[evan_au]

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.

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.

[alancalverd]

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.

[Omaughuntinaser (OP)]

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.

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.

[Omaughuntinaser (OP)]

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.

[Omaughuntinaser (OP)]

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

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!