• 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'm not a conspiracy researcher.
Click to expand...

I agree; you're a conspiracy fanatic. There doesn't seem to be a single conspiracy theory in the whole world that you don't profess to believe in. Either that, or you're the world's most dedicated troll.

It would take a lot of effort to check all the facts even if I contacted a lot of experts.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's a lot easier just to make stuff up. Guess what: there are people willing to take a lot of effort to learn how the world really works. They are the ones who actually do things, rather than sit in their parents' basement and spew hogwash on internet forums. It's pretty cowardly of you to sit there and pass judgment on all their legitimate accomplishments while you yourself are too lazy to inform yourself on even the basic concepts on which your beliefs are based.

Plus it's important to look at the big picture.
Click to expand...

Nope. You're the one who brings up the detail. You're the one who tells us the lunar module just doesn't move right, and that details of the ignition transient and angular momentum would just make that film obviously fake. You bring up the detail to project the illusion that you've actually expended some thought, hoping against hope that no one out there actually knows the science. If you can limit your audience to the extremely gullible and ignorant, you have a chance at convincing them that the allusions to details are the "color" that give your theory credence.

Focusing too much on just a single conspiracy and many connections within the larger picture will likely be missed.
Click to expand...

Every single conspiracy theory is tied up with every single other conspiracy theory until you have a huge web of alternate reality. Of course you ignore the fact that you simply speculate those connections together. So when you're done you have a huge web of speculation. Then you try to tell us the size makes it credible.

Sorry, but if you start a pile of cow dung, there isn't a magical size it can grow to where it somehow becomes angel-food cake.
 
Sorry, but if you start a pile of cow dung, there isn't a magical size it can grow to where it somehow becomes angel-food cake.

HA hahahahah!! Another great sig line from Jay! Thanks, you made my afternoon! :D
 
Last edited:
This thread is a shining example of why I'll trust the evidence and the experts far more than i'll ever trust some ranting uneducated kid on the internet, who is preaching a sermon of the same tired old lies and who gets even the most basic stuff totally wrong.
 
The Platypus said:
This thread is a shining example of why I'll trust the evidence and the experts far more than i'll ever trust some ranting uneducated kid on the internet, who is preaching a sermon of the same tired old lies and who gets even the most basic stuff totally wrong.
Click to expand...


I thought this thread was a shining example of why psychiatrists exist. :boxedin:
 
The Platypus said:
This thread is a shining example of why I'll trust the evidence and the experts far more than i'll ever trust some ranting uneducated kid on the internet, who is preaching a sermon of the same tired old lies and who gets even the most basic stuff totally wrong.
Click to expand...

Of course, but if you always trust experts blindly without really having grokked the topic yourself you risk being too gullible in some cases. People have outsourced their rational judgements to authorities too indiscriminately imo.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Of course, but if you always trust experts blindly without really having grokked the topic yourself you risk being too gullible in some cases.
Click to expand...

Except that the people here have grokked the subject at hand, and have honestly done a very good job of explaining it to you -- and you're either unwilling or unable to take the effort to understand.

This isn't a case of "you're blindly following authority while I'm bravely examining the evidence", as much as you'd like it to be. Instead, it's actually a case of "you've evaluated the evidence and generally accept it, while I refuse to make the effort to understand or examine the evidence at all."

Often, but not always, the "official" explanation became official because people spent a lot of time and effort researching it and alternatives, and it's the one that came out on top.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Except that the people here have grokked the subject at hand, and have honestly done a very good job of explaining it to you -- and you're either unwilling or unable to take the effort to understand.

This isn't a case of "you're blindly following authority while I'm bravely examining the evidence", as much as you'd like it to be. Instead, it's actually a case of "you've evaluated the evidence and generally accept it, while I refuse to make the effort to understand or examine the evidence at all."

Often, but not always, the "official" explanation became official because people spent a lot of time and effort researching it and alternatives, and it's the one that came out on top.
Click to expand...

Actually, not a single comment on this source I posted: http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented#
 
Anders Lindman said:
Actually, not a single comment on this source I posted: http://knol.google.com/k/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying-observational-evidence-presented#
Click to expand...

Are you aware that that article assumes Special Relativity (including time dilation, length contraction, and local time) to be correct, and is simply arguing that General Relativity (the expansion of the principle to gravitation) is incorrect?

If you agree with the link you posted, then you concede essentially everything you've argued about earlier in this thread. Here's a relevant quote:

The geodetic effect can be explained within a steady state Lorentz relativity. The failure of the experiment to definitively confirm the Lense-Thirring effect calls General Relativity into question.
Click to expand...

Emphasis added. Lorentz relativity includes everything that you've been arguing about for this entire thread.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Are you aware that that article assumes Special Relativity (including time dilation, length contraction, and local time) to be correct, and is simply arguing that General Relativity (the expansion of the principle to gravitation) is incorrect?

If you agree with the link you posted, then you concede essentially everything you've argued about earlier in this thread. Here's a relevant quote:



Emphasis added. Lorentz relativity includes everything that you've been arguing about for this entire thread.
Click to expand...

From the source I posted: "Also, it has been demonstrated that gravity propagates at a speed faster than that of light if one assumes gravity propagates outward from the Sun,[104] which is forbidden by Special Relativity."
 
Anders Lindman said:
I haven't contacted any expert about NASA stuff. They say that the acronym stands for never a straight answer so it's futile to contact them, maybe. ;)
Click to expand...

So, you blindly take the word of an anonymous "they"?

The "they" you speak of are idiots. You have just confirmed that your "sources" can not be trusted.

Meaning your opinion is irrelevant.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The lunar module seems to me impossibly improbable with pressurized cabin yet extremely thin walls. And landing that thing live on television on the moon surface where huge amounts of boulders are everywhere? It doesn't compute imo.
Click to expand...

I take it you don't believe in plastic soda bottles, either.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The lunar module seems to me impossibly improbable with pressurized cabin yet extremely thin walls.
...
It doesn't compute
Click to expand...

Can this much irony be unintended? A new record, surely.

Au contraire, Anders; it is you who doesn't compute.

Instead of performing any kind of calculation, you pull hunches and guesses out of your butt. It's why you are so consistently wrong.
 
Anders Lindman said:
From the source I posted: "Also, it has been demonstrated that gravity propagates at a speed faster than that of light if one assumes gravity propagates outward from the Sun,[104] which is forbidden by Special Relativity."
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the point -- the article acknowledges the validity of Special Relativity, including time dilation, length contraction, and local time, but asserts that it does not apply to gravity.

Even the article that you cite to back you up doesn't agree with your skepticism of these phenomena. Which isn't surprising, as it's impossible to be scientifically and technically literate in the 21st Century and not acknowledge time dilation as a real phenomenon.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Yes, that's the point -- the article acknowledges the validity of Special Relativity, including time dilation, length contraction, and local time, but asserts that it does not apply to gravity.

Even the article that you cite to back you up doesn't agree with your skepticism of these phenomena. Which isn't surprising, as it's impossible to be scientifically and technically literate in the 21st Century and not acknowledge time dilation as a real phenomenon.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It says: "Also, it has been demonstrated that gravity propagates at a speed faster than that of light if one assumes gravity propagates outward from the Sun,[104] which is forbidden by Special Relativity."

That means that Special Relativity doesn't match observed reality.
 
Anders Lindman said:
No it doesn't. It says: "Also, it has been demonstrated that gravity propagates at a speed faster than that of light if one assumes gravity propagates outward from the Sun,[104] which is forbidden by Special Relativity."

That means that Special Relativity doesn't match observed reality.
Click to expand...

It's been my experience that if something is observed, it needn't be assumed.

So Special Relativity matches observed relativity, but it doesn't match the assumption plus observed reality.

And you know what they say about assume: it makes an ass of u and me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom