• 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?

Drachasor said:
Lindman, is it not a far simpler conspiracy to propose that YOU are the victim of a conspiracy to get you to distrust science and the government? That way certain elected officials who advocate for smaller government and distrust science would tend to appeal to people. Hence they get in and stay in power at elections.

How hard is it to make a few internet sites and some videos after all? (This seems to be what you are basing things on).

One would require millions of people. The other could be done with a dozen or even less.
Click to expand...

If the result from CERN turns out true, then it fits the prediction that Einstein's theories are false. It's not a proof of a conspiracy but it strengthens the conspiracy theory. Just like a scientific theory, the strength of a conspiracy theory can be measured by how able it is to make accurate predictions.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Not if they deliberately put model-sized objects next to the Saturn V to fool people about the scale. NASA personnel near the rocket could have been people from the NRO who knew about the hoax.
Click to expand...

I was not aware the 60's were so advanced. They had audio-animatronic people that could walk on their own? Get in and out of cars?

And, what, did they hire David Copperfield to hide the real VAB, switching it out with a model building when the time came? And what did they do about the people who had been camping on the hillside for weeks -- from before the roll-out?

You really aren't thinking this through.
 
Mashuna said:
It's a good phrase, but I think the one coined on these forums a couple of years ago is still the best. Anders is a keen user of Smacco's razor.
Click to expand...

The related effect is the one I've been calling "Pringles Syndrome." You can't swallow just one conspiracy theory. Once you've had one, it becomes easier to accept more. And each one you add make the others seem more plausible in context.
 
nomuse said:
I was not aware the 60's were so advanced. They had audio-animatronic people that could walk on their own? Get in and out of cars?

And, what, did they hire David Copperfield to hide the real VAB, switching it out with a model building when the time came? And what did they do about the people who had been camping on the hillside for weeks -- from before the roll-out?

You really aren't thinking this through.
Click to expand...

The VAB looks like it may be smaller than they claim: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Aerial_View_of_Launch_Complex_39.jpg
 
JayUtah said:
In all fairness he admits he doesn't think things through. And he carefully avoided my thought experiment to determine whether that was a wise thing to do or not.
Click to expand...

That's exatly why I'm starting to think he's a troll.

ETA:
Anders Lindman said:
Doesn't the NASA Vehicle Assembly Building look smaller than they claim?

Difficult to judge by a video perhaps, but anyway: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cGo5kcje5Q
Click to expand...

Did you really need two posts to ask that?
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
If the result from CERN turns out true, then it fits the prediction that Einstein's theories are false. It's not a proof of a conspiracy but it strengthens the conspiracy theory. Just like a scientific theory, the strength of a conspiracy theory can be measured by how able it is to make accurate predictions.
Click to expand...

It's also perfectly compatible with science just being science and there being no conspiracy theory.

If your conspiracy doesn't make predictions that are different than what you'd expect anyway, then you are not observing any sort of evidence for its existence.
 
Myriad said:
Please fill in the blank:

The past grows. To "grow" means to increase in measure, such as in size or amount, with the passage of _______.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...


Anders Lindman is just being ludicrously philosophical about a scientific topic to get people wound up. He's arguing that there is no existence outside of what can be directly observed and observation only happens in the relative "now".

It's best not to follow him down that road. It may be interesting to think about, but it's useless in this conversation.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
The VAB looks like it may be smaller than they claim
Click to expand...

Well, you could go and measure it.

Or, if you believe stuff you find on the internet, you could look at it on Google Maps and measure it on that using the handy on-screen scale.

Good enough for a rough approximation.
 
Behind the times here (there's a joke in that somewhere) so apologies for going over things again...

Anders Lindman said:
I show how Einstein's relativity is wrong by pointing out that the relative velocity between two photons traveling in opposite directions is two times the speed of light.
Click to expand...
In the lab frame that is the correct result.

If you can show a scientific experiment showing that the velocity between the photons is 1c you I would be surprised.
Click to expand...
So would I, since in the lab frame it is 2c (as predicted by relativity) and there is no inertial reference frame for a photon.
 
Tubbythin said:
Behind the times here (there's a joke in that somewhere) so apologies for going over things again...


In the lab frame that is the correct result.


So would I, since in the lab frame it is 2c (as predicted by relativity) and there is no inertial reference frame for a photon.
Click to expand...

Yes, my mistake. The limit of the speed of light according to Einstein's special relativity is between the observer and objects, not between two objects from the observer's view.
 
Anders Lindman said:
That's not the future. That's a prediction about the future. A dimension is something that can be measured.
Click to expand...

I think you are very confused. Seconds and minutes and days are used to MEASURE TIME, not predict it. This is precisely what you asked. A second is exactly like a meter in that it measures a dimension.

A prediction is not the same thing as a measurement. Any scientist knows that.
Click to expand...

But apparently you can't tell them apart.

I see you also ignored the rest of my post. Probably didn't like it, eh ?
 
Anders Lindman said:
The past consists of information. The total amount of information representing the past grows moment to moment. The universe is a process of increasing complexity.
Click to expand...

Contradiction. If there is no time, there is no past, only the present. Therefore the information is not increasing. Gee, you can't even understand the implications of your own claims.
 
Belz... said:
I think you are very confused. Seconds and minutes and days are used to MEASURE TIME, not predict it. This is precisely what you asked. A second is exactly like a meter in that it measures a dimension.



But apparently you can't tell them apart.

I see you also ignored the rest of my post. Probably didn't like it, eh ?
Click to expand...

You can't measure the future. Try.
 
Belz... said:
Contradiction. If there is no time, there is no past, only the present. Therefore the information is not increasing. Gee, you can't even understand the implications of your own claims.
Click to expand...

Time is the change in the now. The past is a timeline, but the past does not 'contain' time.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Well, you could go and measure it.

Or, if you believe stuff you find on the internet, you could look at it on Google Maps and measure it on that using the handy on-screen scale.

Good enough for a rough approximation.
Click to expand...

The building seems to be smaller in reality than on Google Maps: http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/6949/vabk.jpg

The right side of the vehicle assembly building should not be that much visible from that position. This indicates that VAB is smaller in reality than on the map.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom