• 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:
100 times less reflected light than expected. That's rational support for my theory.
Click to expand...

No. That's the phenomenon. Your hypothesis was formulated to try to explain the phenomenon. To try to use the phenomenon itself as proof of the hypothesis that was posed to explain it is the very definition of circular reasoning.

Wow, either you're the most prolific troll I've ever seen, or you have serious cognitive dysfunction.

Unless you want to believe that dust heating up a mirror is the cause. What a fairy tale. Ha ha.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'll believe that "fairy tale," because unlike your thrown-together idea, my belief requires only basic physics. Yours requires Magic Dust, for which you've shown no evidence.
 
Anders Lindman said:
No! That's from another thread that has been merged into this thread. Somehow the posts from the other thread were inserted before the OP instead of at the end of this thread.
Click to expand...
really? let's see what you put in post #1, shall we?

As I have already said before, Einstein's theories are flawed. This result from CERN confirms it.

It's very easy to show that Einstein's special relativity is false. Two photons traveling in opposite directions have the relative velocity between them of two times the speed of light, not one time the speed of light as special relativity claims.

In this case, the emperor of science has no clothes.
Click to expand...

Strange that I could find it, yet you could not.

Are these not your words?
 
JayUtah said:
No. That's the phenomenon. Your hypothesis was formulated to try to explain the phenomenon. To try to use the phenomenon itself as proof of the hypothesis that was posed to explain it is the very definition of circular reasoning.

Wow, either you're the most prolific troll I've ever seen, or you have serious cognitive dysfunction.



Yes, I'll believe that "fairy tale," because unlike your thrown-together idea, my belief requires only basic physics. Yours requires Magic Dust, for which you've shown no evidence.
Click to expand...

My hypothesis was perhaps created after I learned about the unusually small reflection from the supposed mirror on the moon, but I think some moon minerals could have those reflective properties.

You say that your belief requires only physics. Have you yourself made calculations of the dust that supposedly is heating up mirror glass? The guy interviewed in that article was wrong about the observatory missing data from full moons, so it could be a good idea to check his other claims too.
 
abaddon said:
really? let's see what you put in post #1, shall we?



Strange that I could find it, yet you could not.

Are these not your words?
Click to expand...

That's from the other thread! As I said, the posts from the other thread were inserted before the OP in this thread. So the original OP is somewhere in the middle of this thread.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
Wait, what?? Is Einstein a banker now? Is CERN a military unit? On the moon? Snorting "moon dust" off a mirror?

I'm very confused by this thread.
Click to expand...

CERN is not a part of the conspiracy theory. Not directly anyway. Disclaimer: wild speculation: Einstein was perhaps paid a lot of money from bankers.
 
"At the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum, photographs of two men are prominently displayed; Albert Einstein, and J. Robert Oppenheimer, who developed the atomic bomb at Los Alamos laboratories, New Mexico.
...
The atomic bomb program could not be launched without the necessary Wall Street sponsorship.
...
Sachs' delivery of the Einstein letter to the White House let Roosevelt know that the Rothschilds approved of the project and wished him to go full speed ahead.
...
Oppenheimer retired to Princeton, where his mentor, Albert Einstein, presided over the Institute for Advanced Study, a think tank for refugee "geniuses", financed by the Rothschilds through one of their many secret foundations." -- http://www.whale.to/b/mullins8.html
 
Anders Lindman said:
My hypothesis was perhaps created after I learned about the unusually small reflection from the supposed mirror on the moon
Click to expand...

Perhaps? Caught in a circularity, now you try to rewrite the history of this thread. Nope, sorry.

...but I think some moon minerals could have those reflective properties.
Click to expand...

I promise you that you don't have to belabor your fervent desire for there to exist some magical substance that has exactly the farfetched set of properties you need in order to cling to your pet belief.

You can't prove it exists. You can't prove it can exist. You don't even have a firm grasp yet of what those properties would have to be, since you can't discuss macroreflection intelligently.

You say that your belief requires only physics. Have you yourself made calculations...
Click to expand...

Let's kindly keep the burden of proof right where it belongs, please. Provide us evidence of your magic dirt.

And while I have not done any computation for this particular problem, I have computed many similar problems in thermal equilibrium and structural deformation/resonance in optical assemblies. That's why you have to allow those assemblies to equalize (Hubble, or ground-based) before they can be useful. And I've done countless heat-transfer problems, enough to know it doesn't take a great deal of increase in absorptivity to result in significant temperature increase. Contamination of radiative assemblies is a big problem in space design.

The thermal deformation hypothesis is fully supported by nothing more than basic physics. I don't need to postulate some sort of magical material.

The guy interviewed in that article was wrong about...
Click to expand...

Good think I don't rely on him for my knowledge of basic physics. You still don't get it: there are people out there who legitimately know things for themselves. Just because you make it up as you go doesn't mean that's what everyone does.
 
To repeat: Only gullible people believe that someone traveling in a rocket near the speed of light can speed up the entire universe, yet that is what they claim could happen in reality: http://wn.com/TIME_TRAVEL_What_Einstein_Did_Not_See

Oh, you foolish people! Wake up to the con job already. You are not children any longer. Can't you see how you are being fooled?
 
Anders, if you ask the mods you can have a nifty custom title like mine.

I suggest "Disclaimer: wild speculation: "
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom