• 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?

Belz... said:
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 ?



Yeah, and according to JFK conspiracy theorists, they also faked the president's body. At some point it's just simpler to accept reality as fact than make up reasons why it's all false.

Or maybe you'd like to tell those folks at Hiroshima that it wasn't a nuclear bomb that fused their clothes to their skin.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Good grief, this whole thread is face palm.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Not according to this:

http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/timedilation.gif

After traveling for 5 years in a rocket at 90% the speed of light relative to Earth then when returning 10 years has passed on Earth? That's ludicrous. It means that not only will the passengers experience the evolution of Earth speeding up but also that the evolution of the sun and the rest of the entire universe also is speeding up by twice the speed!
Click to expand...

You're not reading it right.

(How is it, that conspiracy theorists always gravitate not towards the standard texts, but towards over-simplified -- and potentially misleading -- diagrams drawn up to introduce small children to the concept?)

The "Five Years" is as perceived by the passengers of the rocket.

Not that it matters anyhow; within relativity, since both frames of reference are valid, it is just as valid to say the entire universe sped up during the journey, as it is for the universe to say the lives of the passengers in the rocket slowed down.
 
nomuse said:
...

(How is it, that conspiracy theorists always gravitate not towards the standard texts, but towards over-simplified -- and potentially misleading -- diagrams drawn up to introduce small children to the concept?)
...
Click to expand...

Why do you think? :rolleyes:

Anders, you are wrong.

There are two alternatives. Either you seek help from a professional and embrace reality, or you continue to provide teh lulz on teh interwebz.

And thanks for reminding me that I wanted to watch Scarface again.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
No amount of running will speed up the evolution of the entire universe. Is this claim correct: http://www.btinternet.com/~j.doyle/SR/timedilation.gif

Or are you saying that since acceleration and deceleration are needed for the rocket there will be no time difference?
Click to expand...

Okay, let's try putting it this way.

Assume that at this very moment, a doughty crew of Tralfamadorians have set off from 61 Cygni A and have now accelerated the good ship Salo's Pride to 98.7% C.

The entire known universe is now feeling the effects of time dilation. Everything, every particle, every nuclear reaction, every orbit, the expansion of the universe itself, is now proceeding at a faster pace.

HOW CAN YOU TELL?
 
Last edited:
nomuse said:
Okay, let's try putting it this way.

Assume that at this very moment, a doughty crew of Tralfamadorians have set off from 61 Cygni A and have now accelerated the good ship Salo's Pride to 98.7% C.

The entire known universe is now feeling the effects of time dilation. Everything, every particle, every nuclear reaction, every orbit, the expansion of the universe itself, is now proceeding at a faster pace.

HOW CAN YOU TELL?
Click to expand...

Those aboard the ship will experience the entire universe speeding up according to Einstein.
 
Not that you need to invoke imaginary aliens. There are stars that are moving at obscene velocities, caught in tight orbits around the mega-black hole at the center of an active galaxy.

Or there's charged subatomic particles. One of those passed through this neighborhood on a balmy October night about ten years ago. It crossed our entire solar system and voyaged all the way to Alpha Centauri while a bit less than half a second passed on Earth. As it passed the Earth itself, it noticed that we were a pancake, a disc hanging in space 12,000 km across but only the thickness of a human hair.

(Or it would have, if it hadn't had an unfortunate encounter in our upper atmosphere).
 
Anders Lindman said:
Fortunately the Internet is picking up speed about this topic. Check out for example: http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=476

I haven't read much of that thread but I noticed that the first picture with the two mushroom clouds looked faked.
Click to expand...


Uff... That's to stupid to respond to.

The morons in that forum say the photos weren't possible because there was no window above the wing. Now, that is correct, but there was, however, a window behind the rudder, wich fits perfectly. CT fail. Sorry, you guys won't rewrite history.
 
Greedo said:
Uff... That's to stupid to respond to.

The morons in that forum say the photos weren't possible because there was no window above the wing. Now, that is correct, but there was, however, a window behind the rudder, wich fits perfectly. CT fail. Sorry, you guys won't rewrite history.
Click to expand...

Ok, I haven't looked at that. But don't you think the picture with the mushroom clouds looked fake?

http://www.septclues.com/NUKE HOAX/NAGASAKIhoaxpictures1.jpg

The mushroom cloud on the right looks especially doctored, but the one on the left looks very suspicious too. Like the bottom of the mushroom cloud has been plastered on top of another photo.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Ok, I haven't looked at that. But don't you think the picture with the mushroom clouds looked fake?

http://www.septclues.com/NUKE HOAX/NAGASAKIhoaxpictures1.jpg

The mushroom cloud on the right looks especially doctored, but the one on the left looks very suspicious too. Like the bottom of the mushroom cloud has been plastered on top of another photo.
Click to expand...

How many nuclear explosions have you witnessed with your own eyes? How many large conventional explosions, for that matter? What is the basis upon which you are able to judge what is "realistic" or not about a specific image?

Your "looks fake" reminds me of nothing so much as this venerable and worthy XKCD: http://xkcd.com/331/
 
Anders Lindman said:
Ok, I haven't looked at that. But don't you think the picture with the mushroom clouds looked fake?

http://www.septclues.com/NUKE HOAX/NAGASAKIhoaxpictures1.jpg

The mushroom cloud on the right looks especially doctored, but the one on the left looks very suspicious too. Like the bottom of the mushroom cloud has been plastered on top of another photo.
Click to expand...

Skirts and bells are not uncommon. Here's the George shot of Operation Greenhouse, with a skirt about the upper part of the column:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenhouse_George.jpg



It is difficult to argue that a particular photograph is faked when it is consistent with the kinds of (and variety in) shapes that are commonly observed. The Nakasaki blast is not unusual, and that "double stem" look is visible on a great many other photographs.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Because it looks like a cut and paste job. Here is another suspicious image: http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/140800.jpg

Two persons having a casual everyday talk as if they even haven't noticed the huge mushroom cloud in the sky. lol.
Click to expand...

You may easily be right. There is no provenance on that image. Therefore, it is not an official record or document of ANYTHING.

You might as well say that this: http://www.spellseo.ru/matte/alien_civilization/final_matte.jpg is proof of extra-terrestrial civilization.
 
nomuse said:
How many nuclear explosions have you witnessed with your own eyes? How many large conventional explosions, for that matter? What is the basis upon which you are able to judge what is "realistic" or not about a specific image?

Your "looks fake" reminds me of nothing so much as this venerable and worthy XKCD: http://xkcd.com/331/
Click to expand...

But they do look fake. Here are some more examples: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7RQJyt-BzM

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.

I DON't expect Barack Obama to anytime soon announce: "I have an announcement to make. There are no nuclear weapons. There are no nuclear weapons because they are a hoax, a hoax created for the Cold War during the 20th century. Today in this the 21th century, you the American people and people around all the world deserve the truth, and the truth is that no nation on Earth has nuclear weapons."
 
nomuse said:
Skirts and bells are not uncommon. Here's the George shot of Operation Greenhouse, with a skirt about the upper part of the column:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greenhouse_George.jpg



It is difficult to argue that a particular photograph is faked when it is consistent with the kinds of (and variety in) shapes that are commonly observed. The Nakasaki blast is not unusual, and that "double stem" look is visible on a great many other photographs.
Click to expand...


But at least the picture you posted has a lower part that hangs together consistently with the rest of the mushroom cloud: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Greenhouse_George.jpg

Compare with the totally disjoint appearance here: http://www.septclues.com/NUKE HOAX/NAGASAKIhoaxpictures1.jpg
 
I don't do "looks fake," any more than I do "looks real." The world is not constrained to follow our naive expectations.

Unless you can show you have the background to understand what is being shown, including but not limited to the technical realities of the reproduction process involved in the depiction, your instinct of what something "should look like" has no bearing on reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom