• 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:
Because time is not a dimension, and certainly not a dimension that can be bent by a single rocket traveling around Earth. Someone traveling 90% near the speed of light would not experience the entire universe speeding up by a factor of 2. Can I prove it? No, but that doesn't make the theory less ludicrous imo.
Click to expand...

That doesn't really answer my question. Why do you think time isn't a dimension ?
 
Anders Lindman said:
Geysers are real. Nuclear weapons MAY be real, I admit that, but my guess at the moment is that they are a hoax. Fakery all the way, buddy.
Click to expand...

Again: why ? Why does it make more sense that every shred of evidence (and there is a LOT of it) for nukes is faked, rather that just acception the obvious ?

And are you also saying that nuclear reactors don't exist ?
 
Anders Lindman said:
I don't have the sources saved
Click to expand...

It would be more apt to simply say you have no sources, full stop.

but I remember that there was a difference between what the BBC said in a documentary and what a panel of experts on the atom bombs and the Manhattan project said about Harry Truman's communication with the Japanese government. It was like the total opposite information! So that's something suspicious right there.
Click to expand...

People make contradictory statements all the time, Anders. It doesn't necessarily mean that there's something evil behind it.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Let's look at a really crazy conspiracy theory. This is fun. Let's say that nuclear power plants are a hoax. Why would they fake something like that? To create a public front for secret energy technologies such as zero-point energy extraction. A bit far-fetched conspiracy theory, but what the heck.

To make it a smokescreen public front they needed to make radioactivity into something dangerous. So the prediction here is that scientists started saying that radioactivity is dangerous about the same time as the first nuclear power plants were constructed.
Click to expand...

You are constructing reality as you go along because it is more entertaining to you than the real world. You need medication.
 
I refuse to nominate any of your posts for stundies, despite the fact that your stundie-per-post ratio is detectable on geiger counters:D

Obvious troll is well......really obvious.
 
Roboramma said:
So a tentative result that could be nothing more than measurement error, which has not been reproduced, confirms that one of the most well tested theories in physics is flawed?



Wow, it's amazing that no one ever though of that before!:boggled:

Now, in which reference frame do they "have the relative velocity between them of two times the speed of light"?
Because let's say I have two flashlights, one held in my outstretched left hand, and the other in my outstretched right hand, such that they are pointing in opposite directions.

Relative to me the light from the left flashlight moves away at c to the left, and the light in the right flashlight moves away at c to the right. I can find that according to my own measurements the distance between the front edge of the light from the L flashlight and the front edge of the R flashlight increases at 2c. That doesn't contradict relativity.

What does it look like in a frame that's inertial with respect to the light emitted by my right hand flashlight? The light from the left hand flashlight moves away at c. So nothing contradictory there. The fact that this result appears to contradict the one found in a frame inertial with respect to me is due to the fact that they are different reference frames.
Click to expand...

Those who ignore reference frames are doomed forever to not understand much of physics - and to fairly consistantly expose that ignorance to others
when they try to gloat over things they turn out to have misunderstood or misapplied. It's a blessing (for those who get to shoot them down so easily) and a curse (for the ignorant who keep lining themselves up in the sights).:D:D:D:D
 
Drachasor said:
Last I checked, going up was different than going down. It isn't the same in both directions.

If it helps you any, mathematically time is an imaginary dimension (square root of negative one) relative to the others.
Click to expand...

Sure, but you CAN go up and down. Try to move backwards in time.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Please, tell us more.
Click to expand...

Einstein claimed that time was a dimension. Not very smart, except perhaps he was a clever con man, since he has fooled the public part of society. The shadow part of society has a different knowledge and a difference science. They hardly use equations that have the same property when time is reversed since that is totally not how reality works.
 
Greedo said:
Exactly, Anders. Explain us all the aspects of your grand theory. Why the things are the way you claim they are, and how it works.
Click to expand...

I know basically zero about that. Ask the shadow powers. They have the real knowledge, or at least vastly more accurate knowledge than the toy science we the public have been given to confuse us.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Sure, but you CAN go up and down. Try to move backwards in time.
Click to expand...

That wasn't your argument. Besides which it is theoretically possible that particles that go back in time exist. In fact positrons are indistinguishable in their behavior from electrons traveling backwards in time and can be viewed in that manner.

I'd note it has been considered that the arrow of time is no more special than the fact water flows downhill due to the forces on it.

Beyond that, the definition of a dimension doesn't have the requirement you are pretending it has. Just because time is a different kind of dimension than the spatial dimensions (a fact the math that uses time as a dimension fully acknowledges), doesn't mean it isn't a dimension or can't be used as a dimension mathematically.
 
Anders Lindman said:
"The shift of time to the observer on earth would be about 38 milliseconds per day and would make up for an total error of approximately 10 km per day. In order that those error do not have to be corrected constantly, the clocks of the satellites were set to 10.229999995453 Mhz instead of 10.23 Mhz but they are operated as if they had 10.23 MHz. By this trick the relativistic effects are compensated once and for all." -- http://www.kowoma.de/en/gps/errors.htm

Compensated once and for all. Doesn't that mean that the GPS receivers don't have to compensate for relativistic effects?
Click to expand...

Yes, because the clocks on the satellites actually already compensate for time dilation. Of course, if time dilation were not real the discrepency between the clocks on the satellites and earth-bound clocks would mean they'd give false results.

It's not very hard to understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom