Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

Mashuna said:
To be fair, this is a much better sub forum for Anders' take on the situation.
Click to expand...

Yes, the other thread is more about examining if the result from CERN is wrong I thought. I started this thread to examine if Einstein's theories are wrong and if there is a conspiracy behind it.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Yes, the other thread is more about examining if the result from CERN is wrong I thought. I started this thread to examine if Einstein's theories are wrong and if there is a conspiracy behind it.
Click to expand...

Einstein's theories wrong? Maybe, but they're exceptionally well tested. From my understanding they will only ever be shown as inexact rather than "wrong" (much like Newton before)
Conspiracy? No

You're welcome
 
Many scientific experiments have confirmed Einstein's theories. However, I suspect that the results in some cases have been tampered with by gatekeeper scientists to protect their hoax theories they have given the public, and some results may be explainable with other theories than Einstein's relativity.
 
DrDave said:
Einstein's theories wrong? Maybe, but they're exceptionally well tested. From my understanding they will only ever be shown as inexact rather than "wrong" (much like Newton before)
Conspiracy? No

You're welcome
Click to expand...

Take the muon experiment for example: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html

That seems to validate Einstein's relativity, but I found this suspicious attribute for muons:

"Because muons have a very large mass and energy compared with the decay energy of radioactivity, they are never produced by radioactive decay." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon

I'm a total amateur when it comes to this so this is just a speculation but isn't it suspicious that the decay is not the ordinary radioactive decay?
 
Anders Lindman said:
Yes, the other thread is more about examining if the result from CERN is wrong I thought. I started this thread to examine if Einstein's theories are wrong and if there is a conspiracy behind it.
Click to expand...

Anders Lindman said:
Take the muon experiment for example: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/muon.html

That seems to validate Einstein's relativity, but I found this suspicious attribute for muons:

"Because muons have a very large mass and energy compared with the decay energy of radioactivity, they are never produced by radioactive decay." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon

I'm a total amateur when it comes to this so this is just a speculation but isn't it suspicious that the decay is not the ordinary radioactive decay?
Click to expand...

Your conspiracy would have to be so wide reaching that it is basically everyone except me (how do I know you're not in on it?). That way lies madness!
 
Here is another suspicious thing about muons:

"Improved Measurement of the Positive Muon Lifetime and Determination of the Fermi Constant

The mean life of the positive muon has been measured to a precision of 11 ppm using a low-energy, pulsed muon beam stopped in a ferromagnetic target, which was surrounded by a scintillator detector array. The result, tau_mu = 2.197013(24) us, is in excellent agreement with the previous world average." -- http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.1981

This looks like a perfectly fine result. Clicking on the link "Which authors of this paper are endorsers?" and this comes up:

David W. Hertzog: Is registered as an author of this paper.
Not currently an endorser. (why?)
Brendan Kiburg: Is registered as an author of this paper.
Not currently an endorser. (why?)
Bernhard Lauss: Is registered as an author of this paper.
Can endorse for nucl-ex. (why?)
David Webber: Is registered as an author of this paper.
Not currently an endorser. (why?)
Peter Winter: Is registered as an author of this paper.
Not currently an endorser. (why?)

None of these persons have endorsed the paper? :confused: Maybe it doesn't mean anything special :D and only has to do with the arXiv system, but anyway I think it looks a bit suspicious. Could it be gatekeeper scientists that produced the paper with phony/false data made look convincing?
 
DrDave said:
Your conspiracy would have to be so wide reaching that it is basically everyone except me (how do I know you're not in on it?). That way lies madness!
Click to expand...

Yes, the theory is about a HUGE conspiracy, much larger than for example the Climategate scandal. Except it would only require a few gatekeeper scientists to produce fake scientific results, so it's relatively easy to maintain keeping Einstein's theories look valid.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Many scientific experiments have confirmed Einstein's theories. However, I suspect that the results in some cases have been tampered with by gatekeeper scientists to protect their hoax theories they have given the public, and some results may be explainable with other theories than Einstein's relativity.
Click to expand...

No

Anders Lindman said:
I'm a total amateur when it comes to this so this is just a speculation but isn't it suspicious that the decay is not the ordinary radioactive decay?
Click to expand...

No

Anders Lindman said:
<snip> Could it be gatekeeper scientists that produced the paper with phony/false data made look convincing?
Click to expand...

No

See, your questions are quite easy, when you just think about them!
 
Mashuna said:
No



No



No

See, your questions are quite easy, when you just think about them!
Click to expand...

How about the question: Could there be gatekeeper scientists producing false results to fool the public (including fooling all the other scientists who work with public science as oppose to secret science)?
 
Anders Lindman said:
How about the question: Could there be gatekeeper scientists producing false results to fool the public (including fooling all the other scientists who work with public science as oppose to secret science)?
Click to expand...

No
Mashona is right- this is easy
 
Anders Lindman said:
Ok, let's try again :D: Could there exist scientific knowledge kept hidden from the public for military purposes?
Click to expand...

Of course. For example the Manhatten project. But I think that most foreign governments still knew more than the US wanted. So completely secret is unlikely.
 
DrDave said:
Of course. For example the Manhatten project. But I think that most foreign governments still knew more than the US wanted. So completely secret is unlikely.
Click to expand...

Is it possible that the Manhattan project was a hoax?
 
mercatormac said:
No.
Click to expand...

The title of this video is wrong, it's not the Hiroshima bomb, but notice how the clouds remain intact after the supposed nuclear explosion! Pretty sturdy clouds. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtSt5XZ7fq4

Looks fake to me. Like a superposition of two separate films; one with the explosion and the other with the clouds, plus fake shadows airbrushed onto the clouds.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
Conspiracy researchers have said that there are (at least) two levels of knowledge in the world; one for the public going up to the level of professors in academia, and another level above that hidden from the public where the real knowledge is kept.

Could it be that Einstein's relativity theories have been deliberately created to fool the public? Why? Because by keeping the correct knowledge to themselves they (the shadow powers) can remain one step ahead of the rest of us.
Click to expand...

In that case these shadow powers might as well have simply kept telling people that Newtonian physics offered the correct view and skipped coming up with a new physics. I mean, you're suggesting that they made up the results to thousands of experiments to fool you into believing something that there's no need for them to fool you into believing: if they want you to believe something other than their hidden correct physics, why not just leave it with Newtonian physics? Much simpler, cheaper, and they don't have to falsify all sorts of experiments to do it.

Unless we're positing stupid and crazy shadow overlords here...:boggled:
 
Roboramma said:
In that case these shadow powers might as well have simply kept telling people that Newtonian physics offered the correct view and skipped coming up with a new physics. I mean, you're suggesting that they made up the results to thousands of experiments to fool you into believing something that there's no need for them to fool you into believing: if they want you to believe something other than their hidden correct physics, why not just leave it with Newtonian physics? Much simpler, cheaper, and they don't have to falsify all sorts of experiments to do it.

Unless we're positing stupid and crazy shadow overlords here...:boggled:
Click to expand...

No, that doesn't compute, because the shadow powers needed some hoax theory to explain their hoax atom bomb.
 
Another reason for why to keep the real science hidden from the public is that it might be too dangerous in the hands of ordinary people, especially in the hands of terrorists, criminals and (other) crazy people.

Imagine a zero-point energy bomb that would make the alleged atom bombs look like firecrackers in comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom