Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

Anders Lindman said:
Cancer statistics could have been faked. The mushroom clouds could be made fairly big with conventional explosives. And the witnesses always wore goggles so they couldn't tell exactly how bright the explosions really were: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWz-xpbKcQ0
Click to expand...

So everything has been faked except the CERN results that you believe prove Einstein wrong.

How do you distinguish between fake and not-fake? Surely there is some objective measure you use to exclude the CERN results from all other claims. What is it?
 
Anders Lindman said:
Cancer statistics could have been faked. The mushroom clouds could be made fairly big with conventional explosives. And the witnesses always wore goggles so they couldn't tell exactly how bright the explosions really were: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWz-xpbKcQ0
Click to expand...

You use "could have" and "could" a lot.

If you simply hand wave away evidence that is contrary to your position as "could have been faked" with no evidence it was, you come across as just another irrational conspiracy theorist to be ignored. Any advantages you may think you have using stuff like that in a debate are solely in your head.

Now, if you were to actually present evidence that any cancer statistics were faked, for example, then people would starting listening...
 
Last edited:
aggle-rithm said:
So everything has been faked except the CERN results that you believe prove Einstein wrong.

How do you distinguish between fake and not-fake? Surely there is some objective measure you use to exclude the CERN results from all other claims. What is it?
Click to expand...

Not-fake = "I agree with it"
Faked = "I don't agree with it"
 
aggle-rithm said:
Relative to the observer, nothing can go faster than 1c.

So the observer sees one photon flying away at 1c, and another flying the opposite direction at 1c. He can say, "the relative velocity between the two is 2c", but from the viewpoint of the observer, nothing is moving faster than 1c.
Click to expand...

That's not the reply I got from the scientist. I claimed that the relative velocity between the two photons is 2c, just as you say here, but he said it is 1c according to Einstein's special relativity.
 
aggle-rithm said:
So everything has been faked except the CERN results that you believe prove Einstein wrong.

How do you distinguish between fake and not-fake? Surely there is some objective measure you use to exclude the CERN results from all other claims. What is it?
Click to expand...

Who benefits? Who benefits from WW1, WW2, the atom bomb, Cold War, and moon landing hoax and so on? The international bankers! Do you think the debt to the top of the banking pyramid can ever be payed back? It can't! It's an exponentially ever growing black hole. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU

Who benefits from CERN finding particles traveling faster than light? Not those who want to protect Einstein's bogus theories. And I claimed Einstein was wrong long before CERN made their announcement.
 
twinstead said:
You use "could have" and "could" a lot.

If you simply hand wave away evidence that is contrary to your position as "could have been faked" with no evidence it was, you come across as just another irrational conspiracy theorist to be ignored. Any advantages you may think you have using stuff like that in a debate are solely in your head.

Now, if you were to actually present evidence that any cancer statistics were faked, for example, then people would starting listening...
Click to expand...

I think the videos I posted are evidence enough to start questioning the reality of nuclear weapons.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I think the videos I posted are evidence enough to start questioning the reality of nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

What you think is irrelevant. There's too much evidence that supports nuclear weapons; the mental gymnastics you have to perform in order to ignore, claim as faked, or hand wave away that evidence is both amusing, and very very telling.
 
So what has Einstein's relativity theories to do with the atom bomb? Einstein published his theory of general relativity 1916, almost 30 years before the first atom bomb. Some conspiracy researchers say that the ruling elite make plans stretching several decades, so who knows, maybe the main purpose of Einstein's bogus theories was to decades later fake a super weapon.

Another possibility is that Einstein's theories were published as a smokescreen for the real physics, such as discovered by Nikola Tesla involving zero-point energy and things like that. Only a few people are selected in universities to become real scientists, working above the public level, while the rest are fed disinfo science like Einstein's relativity theories (that not even experts seem to really know how to really apply for even such simple things as the velocity between two photons).

And, here is another speculative theory; the real science would have the capability to create REAL super weapons, which could be used to simulate atom and hydrogen bomb explosions. And even more speculative: Nuclear power plants are using another technology than they claim, such as water fuel cells, which would create hydrogen explosion risk in the case of some disaster, and that is actually what happens. Hydrogen explosions that they claim come from some incredible reaction with a special metal. Also, the nuclear disaster in Japan probably didn't produce any radioactivity if this outrageous conspiracy theory is true.
 
No, just no.

Somehow a shadowy cabal of international bankers, who start WW1, WW2, the Cold War (of which the space race is a part) is also responsible for suppressing "real" science instead of that fake stuff we've been using and testing for years. They have developed or at least financed, things that duplicate nuclear sciences and weapons, faked cancers in people, for what?!?

If any group had that kind of power they could just rule openly. No need for secrecy, they'd have the ability to just get Lackey #5 to deal with the problem.
 
Conspiracy researchers often talk about how the ruling elite always is several steps ahead of us with their plans. If so, then the massive project at CERN and its shocking result are meant to have happened. :D

So the shadow powers want the truth to start coming out. :) And they want us to expose them. I hope. :confused: Or? :eek: :boxedin:
 
Border Reiver said:
No, just no.

Somehow a shadowy cabal of international bankers, who start WW1, WW2, the Cold War (of which the space race is a part) is also responsible for suppressing "real" science instead of that fake stuff we've been using and testing for years. They have developed or at least financed, things that duplicate nuclear sciences and weapons, faked cancers in people, for what?!?

If any group had that kind of power they could just rule openly. No need for secrecy, they'd have the ability to just get Lackey #5 to deal with the problem.
Click to expand...

To maintain their power. They are very few compared to the billions of people in the public society. They would very quickly lose their power to other power groups in society without their upper hand.
 
Anders Lindman said:
That's not the reply I got from the scientist. I claimed that the relative velocity between the two photons is 2c, just as you say here, but he said it is 1c according to Einstein's special relativity.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

"In non-relativistic mechanics the velocities are simply added and the answer is that A is moving with a velocity w = u+v relative to C. But in special relativity the velocities must be combined using the formula

W =

u + v
---------
1 + uv/c2


If u and v are both small compared to the speed of light c, then the answer is approximately the same as the non-relativistic theory. In the limit where u is equal to c (because C is a massless particle moving to the left at the speed of light), the sum gives c. This confirms that anything going at the speed of light does so in all reference frames.

This change in the velocity addition formula is not due to making measurements without taking into account time it takes light to travel or the Doppler effect. It is what is observed after such effects have been accounted for and is an effect of special relativity which cannot be accounted for with newtonian mechanics.

The formula can also be applied to velocities in opposite directions by simply changing signs of velocity values or by rearranging the formula and solving for v. In other words, If B is moving with velocity u relative to C and A is moving with velocity w relative to C then the velocity of A relative to B is given by

v =

w - u
---------
1 - wu/c2

Notice that the only case with velocities less than or equal to c which is singular is w = u = c which gives the indeterminate zero divided by zero. In other words it is meaningless to ask the relative velocity of two photons going in the same direction."
 
Last edited:
Erock said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

"The formula can also be applied to velocities in opposite directions by simply changing signs of velocity values or by rearranging the formula and solving for v."
Click to expand...

Yes! That's the same answer I got from the scientist. The problem is that this will give a relative velocity between the photons of 1c. This doesn't match reality since if we measure the actual distance traveled and the time it takes, as according to the observer's clock and measuring of lengths, then we will get a result of 2c.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The fake films of atom bomb explosions is one thing. The Manhattan project happened to be finished just before the war was completely over. A bit too good timing imo. The Japanese government could use the atom bombs as an excuse to surrender and save face, while the U.S. got the world to believe they had a super weapon, and then a few years later they made sure the Soviet Union also claimed to have nukes so that they could start the Cold War hoax to keep the citizens on both sides in line.

Here is a long video about how the Soviet nuclear program was faked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK15iLD19qE
Click to expand...

That is an evasion, not an answer.

I ask again, what physics, in your opinion, "doesn't work" about a nuclear weapon? Where does the description of how these devices work disagree with physics as you understand it?
 
nomuse said:
That is an evasion, not an answer.

I ask again, what physics, in your opinion, "doesn't work" about a nuclear weapon? Where does the description of how these devices work disagree with physics as you understand it?
Click to expand...

Oh, I forgot that part. I don't believe conventional explosives can hold the fission material in a critical mass. The alleged fission explosion is much more powerful than the ability of conventional explosives to keep the fission material together. They claimed to have managed to achieve that in the Manhattan project just when the war was about to end. Someone even said, I don't remember who, that the Hiroshima type bomb hadn't even been tested before it was used.
 
dasmiller said:
That's kinda why it explodes.
Click to expand...

But only a tiny fraction of the fission material would explode since as soon as the fission material is broken apart it no longer has critical mass. The conventional explosives is used to press the fission material together long enough for the chain reaction to create a nuclear explosion. I doubt that such scenario really is possible.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Oh, I forgot that part. I don't believe conventional explosives can hold the fission material in a critical mass. The alleged fission explosion is much more powerful than the ability of conventional explosives to keep the fission material together. They claimed to have managed to achieve that in the Manhattan project just when the war was about to end. Someone even said, I don't remember who, that the Hiroshima type bomb hadn't even been tested before it was used.
Click to expand...

Well, reductio ad absurdum, if the shaped charges held the fissionables together perfectly, there would be no explosion. As a matter of fact, the mass is held at supercriticality for the tiniest fraction of a second, and most of the uranium goes un-fissioned.

(So-called hydrogen bombs -- the Teller-Ulam design -- are a bit more complex).

Also worth noting that of the two atomic weapons dropped on Japan, one was a gun-type weapon -- one lump of enriched uranium was literally fired like an artillery shell towards the other, momentarily fusing them into a super-critical mass.
 
Anders Lindman said:
But only a tiny fraction of the fission material would explode since as soon as the fission material is broken apart it no longer has critical mass. The conventional explosives is used to press the fission material together long enough for the chain reaction to create a nuclear explosion. I doubt that such scenario really is possible.
Click to expand...

Oh, and incidentally, a similar scenario takes place in the heart of a star; gravitational pressure forces hydrogen, helium...etc. atoms together until the mutual repulsion is overcome, producing a new heavier material and a lot of energy; enough to push the materials away as strongly as before. The star remains balanced on the twin forces of gravitational collapse and the ongoing small amounts of fusion forcing the materials of the star apart again.

(Until you reach iron, and the game begins to fall apart).
 
I doubt that it isn't really just turtles all the way down.

Prove it isn't!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom