• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

Anders Lindman said:
I notice here that you didn't answer the question I posted. According to Einstein's theories they say that someone traveling near the speed of light around Earth will experience 5 years of time in the rocket while 10 years passes on Earth. Absolutely ridiculous. That would actually mean that the person in the rocket would experience the entire universe to speed up 2x. Total nonsense.
Click to expand...

I notice here that you didn't read my post that answers what you just repeated:

No one is saying that the entire universe is accelerated. Time just doesn't flow at the same speed when you accelerate.

I get that this is hard to understand because it doesn't appeal to our day-to-day common sense. But do you have ANY reason to believe that it is false ASIDE from the difficulty in understanding it ?

Your pitiful understanding of relativity is not an excuse to make up stuff about it. And experiencing the universe speeding up, as opposed to it actually speeding up, it not ludicrous. When I drive through a road, I experience stuff moving although they are not.

Your entire argument is one of incredulity. "I can't understand/believe it therefire it is not true."
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Finding out that Einstein's relativity theories are a hoax would solve a lot of problems.
Click to expand...
I can't ignore this sentence. 'Hoax'? You do realize that Einstein's theory has not only been proven time and time again but it has practical applications, right? If it were a hoax or fake, nuclear physics wouldn't work and we'd be still using vacuum tube technologies.

That you call it a 'hoax' tells me a lot of your understanding of science in general.
 
Border Reiver said:
The words were "convection currents".
Click to expand...

Like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr76hNngqts

If that is what is supposed to happen to buildings far away from the explosion, are we supposed to believe a cloud much closer to the explosion will remain intact? Convection currents? Like a smooth sine wave? The blast wave from an atom bomb is surely highly nonlinear, with a sharp impulse-like characteristics that no doubt would obliterate all clouds within a huge radius from the blast. And that is without taking the enormous heat radiation into account, or super-hot steam expanding outwards when the detonation happens near or under the surface of the ocean.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Finding out that Einstein's relativity theories are a hoax would solve a lot of problems. Just look at those poor suckers who are struggling with incredible mathematical stunts to try to 'unify' Einstein's bogus theories with quantum mechanics which by the way looks way more credible as a theory to me than the relativity insanity.
Click to expand...

Again, where's your evidence that anything is fake. All you have provided is "that's ludicrous" and "looks fake".

Let's just call everything that poses problems fake. Guns, meh, fake, look at those poor suckers getting shot every day, that'll sure help them!
Pandemics, meh, fake!... :rolleyes:
 
Anders Lindman said:
Ok, I haven't looked at that.
Click to expand...

Seems to be your M.O.

Because it looks like a cut and paste job.
Click to expand...

No. You WANT it to be fake so you do like the 9/11 CTers do with the pixelated, crappy videos of the crashes: you see what you want to see.

But they do look fake.
Click to expand...

YOU look fake, Anders, and yet we spend much time giving you the attention you crave.
 
Belz... said:
Seems to be your M.O.



No. You WANT it to be fake so you do like the 9/11 CTers do with the pixelated, crappy videos of the crashes: you see what you want to see.



YOU look fake, Anders, and yet we spend much time giving you the attention you crave.
Click to expand...


Exactly. I often find myself thinking :tr:
 
Anders Lindman said:
As I have written about earlier in this thread, if Einstein's theories are false, then the positive scientific experiments have been faked by gatekeeper scientists as a part of a monstrous conspiracy. So I don't trust those results.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the same "gatekeeper" scientists not have revealed the CERN findings? Or if the people running that experiment aren't gatekeeper scientists, then given their extensive experience with high-speed particles, they would have revealed the fakery long ago. I don't see how what you are saying makes sense.
 
Belz... said:
No one is saying that the entire universe is accelerated.
Click to expand...

According to Einstein a person traveling in a rocket near the speed of light around Earth for 5 years will cause 10 years to pass on Earth. That means that the person will experience the entire universe speeding up by a factor of 2. That's a crazy theory. People don't see this because they usually only think of the time difference between Earth and the rocket and forget about the rest of the universe.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Of course, I'm not 100% sure that nuclear weapons are a hoax. It's an interesting theory though. If true then much of recent human history suddenly looks very different than what we have been told.
Click to expand...

And that's the summary of the CT mindset: a morbid interest in a murderous lie they can armchair-fight against. It's a call for attention and a symptom of a boring life.

At least the stuff I make up to compensate for my boring life is labeled as such.
 
Anders Lindman said:
As I have written about earlier in this thread, if Einstein's theories are false, then the positive scientific experiments have been faked by gatekeeper scientists as a part of a monstrous conspiracy. So I don't trust those results.
Click to expand...

And this one stands in stark contrast with true critical thinking.

What you are saying is that you don't trust evidence against your hypothesis because if your hypothesis is true there could be another true hypothesis for which there is no evidence which would explain why your hypothesis is actually true and why the evidence against your hypothesis doesn't count.

Do you think this is rational ?
 
Anders Lindman said:
According to Einstein a person traveling in a rocket near the speed of light around Earth for 5 years will cause 10 years to pass on Earth. That means that the person will experience the entire universe speeding up by a factor of 2. That's a crazy theory....
Click to expand...

Again, all you've got is "that's a crazy theory". It is only crazy to you, and a bunch of morons on conspiracy websites.

Anders Lindman said:
People don't see this because they usually only think of the time difference between Earth and the rocket and forget about the rest of the universe.
Click to expand...

Yeah, just like all those scientists that, you know, think about just that :rolleyes:.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
According to Einstein a person traveling in a rocket near the speed of light around Earth for 5 years will cause 10 years to pass on Earth. That means that the person will experience the entire universe speeding up by a factor of 2.
Click to expand...

Actually, all it means is that both the Earth and the person experience time flowing at different speeds.

That's a crazy theory.
Click to expand...

Why ? This could be the most important question of the thread. You keep saying it's nonsense. Yet you fail to explain why aside from your own incredulity. So I ask you: why ?

People don't see this because they usually only think of the time difference between Earth and the rocket and forget about the rest of the universe.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant.
 
If that is what is supposed to happen to buildings far away from the explosion, are we supposed to believe a cloud much closer to the explosion will remain intact?
Click to expand...
What exactly do you think it means to obliterate a cloud?

Your video isn't terribly relevant to the cloud because the effects you're seeing involve a lot of convection and shear. But even in your video you can see the effects that due to overpressure and think about why they wouldn't be relevant to a cloud.
 
Drachasor said:
Wouldn't the same "gatekeeper" scientists not have revealed the CERN findings? Or if the people running that experiment aren't gatekeeper scientists, then given their extensive experience with high-speed particles, they would have revealed the fakery long ago. I don't see how what you are saying makes sense.
Click to expand...

Somehow I suspect that the conspirators want this to be exposed. Otherwise they would have stopped the CERN experiments with neutrinos. The Cold War is over. The atom bombs too feel like something from the 20th century. So there is no longer the same incentive to keep the hoax going.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Somehow I suspect that the conspirators want this to be exposed. Otherwise they would have stopped the CERN experiments with neutrinos. The Cold War is over. The atom bombs too feel like something from the 20th century. So there is no longer the same incentive to keep the hoax going.
Click to expand...

Or...

YOU ARE WRONG
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
What exactly do you think it means to obliterate a cloud?

Your video isn't terribly relevant to the cloud because the effects you're seeing involve a lot of convection and shear. But even in your video you can see the effects that due to overpressure and think about why they wouldn't be relevant to a cloud.
Click to expand...

In the video we see a huge steam ball expanding well past the positions of the nearby clouds. What temperature would that steam have had? What velocity of the expanding steam? What pressure gradient? And compare that to what would have happened to nearby clouds in a real situation like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrjpgnvusBI

http://i54.tinypic.com/975s10.jpg
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Somehow I suspect that the conspirators want this to be exposed. Otherwise they would have stopped the CERN experiments with neutrinos. The Cold War is over. The atom bombs too feel like something from the 20th century. So there is no longer the same incentive to keep the hoax going.
Click to expand...

Atomic bombs have essentially nothing to do with this.

Have you ever told 20 people a secret? Do you think you could do that and expect it to remain a secret? How about 1000? How about 10000? How does a conspiracy even begin to make sense? Why do you think new scientists, who get into the field because they care about TRUTH would possibly support such a conspiracy?
 
Anders Lindman said:
In the video we see a huge steam ball expanding well past the positions of the nearby clouds. What temperature would that steam have had? What velocity of the expanding steam? What pressure gradient? And compare that to what would have happened to nearby clouds in a real situation like this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrjpgnvusBI

http://i54.tinypic.com/975s10.jpg
Click to expand...

I don't follow you. At 1 second and at 20 seconds, if you compare the clouds, the ones caught in the explosion are changed significantly. It's just that most of the clouds are too far away to get affected. We are literally seeing how far the explosion can push dust and the like by, you know, how far it is pushing dust and the like. Why would you expect clouds outside that area to be affected?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom