• 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:
The precision of the thrusters must also be taken into account for the calculations. And the precision of the control system regulating the thrusters. So it's much more complicated than just some simple calculations.
Click to expand...

Do you just assume that anything too complicated for you is impossible for anyone?
 
dasmiller said:
You know, one way to deal with that problem would be to learn enough about the basic physics so that you could work out the truth behind a lot of these claims by yourself, without having to take anyone's word.
Click to expand...

I guess I could learn how to check these claims:

3. The light direction absurdity.
4. The really strange and marvelous magical gamma absurdity.
5. The amazing transverse gamma absurdity.
6. The time increases as distance decreases absurdity.
7. Simultaneity and Measurement Prologue.
8. The data scale degradation absurdity.
9. The absolute simultaneity SR transforms.
10. The Relativistic Maxwell absurdity.
11. The Twins Paradox absurdity.
12. The "how does an absurd SR work" non-absurdity.
13. The "strange effects of nothing" absurdities.
14. The "lasting effects of no effect" absurdity.
15. The "brag about your absurdities" absurdity.
16. Einstein's anti-simultaneity argument.
17. A straightforward pro-simultaneity argument.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/physics-faq/criticism/einstein-absurdities/index.html

But I leave that to others. Who knows, at some point someone with expert knowledge in physics on the Internet may find this thread, or that webpage, and check if the claims are valid.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I guess I could learn how to check these claims:

3. The light direction absurdity.
4. The really strange and marvelous magical gamma absurdity.
5. The amazing transverse gamma absurdity.
6. The time increases as distance decreases absurdity.
7. Simultaneity and Measurement Prologue.
8. The data scale degradation absurdity.
9. The absolute simultaneity SR transforms.
10. The Relativistic Maxwell absurdity.
11. The Twins Paradox absurdity.
12. The "how does an absurd SR work" non-absurdity.
13. The "strange effects of nothing" absurdities.
14. The "lasting effects of no effect" absurdity.
15. The "brag about your absurdities" absurdity.
16. Einstein's anti-simultaneity argument.
17. A straightforward pro-simultaneity argument.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/physics-faq/criticism/einstein-absurdities/index.html
Click to expand...

Actually, you really could learn enough to address most of those. That LEM rotation is pretty basic, for example.

If the LEM rotation argument isn't important to you, then stop saying that it's strong evidence of a conspiracy.

If the LEM rotation argument is important to you, then learn enough physics to understand it.

Right now, your position is "I don't understand the principles involved but I can tell that it's wrong anyway." On a skeptics forum, no less.

But I leave that to others. Who knows, at some point someone with expert knowledge in physics on the Internet may find this thread, or that webpage, and check if the claims are valid.
Click to expand...

Some of us ARE ******* experts in the subjects that you've raised, and you choose not to believe us.
 
The rotation stops for the lunar module (LM) could be tested here on Earth by having the LM hanging in a wire from a crane. The air resistance for the movements would be negligible since it would be hanging still relatively to the air and the speeds of the rotations are slow.

To test it the thrusters are simply fired the same way as in empty space, and then the stops of the rotations are observed. Some modifications of the thrust power may be needed since they would be operating in air instead of in empty space.

The momentum and inertia would be the same on Earth as in space. And gravity would not affect the test much since the rotation would be around the wire, perpendicular to Earth's gravity field.
 
If the conspiracy theory about Einstein's theories is somewhat correct, then even I may be a part of the shadow powers. :D Not directly, I can assure you, but they could influence my posts to basically steer them the way they want by how they reply to them.

The big IF is if Einstein's theories really are a hoax. The chances for that are perhaps very slim, but it's good to hedge the bets anyway. So I'm not talking about some super paranoia. I'm describing rational conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
The rotation stops for the lunar module (LM) could be tested here on Earth by having the LM hanging in a wire from a crane. The air resistance for the movements would be negligible since it would be hanging still relatively to the air and the speeds of the rotations are slow.

To test it the thrusters are simply fired the same way as in empty space, and then the stops of the rotations are observed. Some modifications of the thrust power may be needed since they would be operating in air instead of in empty space.

The momentum and inertia would be the same on Earth as in space. And gravity would not affect the test much since the rotation would be around the wire, perpendicular to Earth's gravity field.
Click to expand...

Yes, you could do this, but the basic calculation is soooooo much easier and cheaper . . .

ETA: Unless you think Newton was in on the Conspiracy.
 
dasmiller said:
Yes, you could do this, but the basic calculation is soooooo much easier and cheaper . . .

ETA: Unless you think Newton was in on the Conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Newton laws are excellent. That's something that can be tested and verified very easily. Maybe Newton laws are precise? :confused: And the claim that Newton's laws are only approximations another Big Lie.
 
Anders Lindman said:
but NASA could lie about the specs for the thrusters etc so it's really a real mess.
Click to expand...

No, you're just trying to manufacture a mess so that you can hide in the trumped-up complexity and pretend it's not a cut-and-dried question on which you're wrong.

The thrusters in question are a commercial product used by many vehicles. If they were wrongly specified, the other customers would know.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The precision of the thrusters must also be taken into account for the calculations. And the precision of the control system regulating the thrusters. So it's much more complicated than just some simple calculations.
Click to expand...

In other words you don't know how to do the computations. Please consider that thousands of engineering students have made those computations for that vehicle as part of their classroom exercises and have found nothing amiss.

You are simply wrong. Your expectations are based on nothing more than your desire to disbelieve. You have absolutely no factual or computational basis for them at all.

The design of the LM's guidance and control system is a matter of public record, and contains the entirety of the computations involving the problem. You are free to inform yourself.
 
Anders Lindman said:
But I leave that to others.
Click to expand...

No, you don't. You assume it upon yourself, believing that your uninformed intuition is a sufficient judge of reality to impeach the achievements of others.

Who knows, at some point someone with expert knowledge in physics on the Internet may find this thread, or that webpage, and check if the claims are valid.
Click to expand...

Done and done. Experts in spacecraft dynamics are not that hard to come by, and they all -- with specific and highly informed knowledge -- all accept the Apollo Lunar Module as not only a viable spacecraft design, but one of the most cunning and ingenious designs in all of the field. As a shining example of "pure" astronautical design, it is well studied.

That's very honest of you to admit you don't know what you're talking about. Will you be so kind as to respect the opinions of others, who do?
 
JayUtah said:
Done and done. Experts in spacecraft dynamics are not that hard to come by, and they all -- with specific and highly informed knowledge -- all accept the Apollo Lunar Module as not only a viable spacecraft design, but one of the most cunning and ingenious designs in all of the field. As a shining example of "pure" astronautical design, it is well studied.
Click to expand...

Eh, that was not about the lunar module. It was about this: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/physics-faq/criticism/einstein-absurdities/index.html
 
JayUtah said:
Exactly how long, and how did you determine it?
Click to expand...

Longer than 167 milliseconds, which is the time for one film frame. Because the startup time for the thrusters is longer than zero seconds, and the power is a ramp up function, so there will be a deceleration phase likely longer than 167 milliseconds. Notice that the rotation goes from constant angular velocity, which means that the thrusters are in an off state, and then bang! Immediately the rotation stops.
 
This thread reminds me of a debate about evolution between a creationist and a group of scientists. No matter what you say, his mind isn't going to change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom