Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

Spindrift said:
No, Shakespeare. "2c or not 2c?"
Click to expand...

To see or not to see the truth. "the contrast between the popular estimate of my powers and achievements and the reality is simply grotesque." -- Albert Einstein

Simply grotesque since Einstein was a con man.

"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." -- Albert Einstein

Applying that to his own theories should give us a hint.
 
Anders Lindman said:
To see or not to see the truth. "the contrast between the popular estimate of my powers and achievements and the reality is simply grotesque." -- Albert Einstein

Simply grotesque since Einstein was a con man.

"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." -- Albert Einstein

Applying that to his own theories should give us a hint.
Click to expand...

Don't take it out on Einstein if you can't understand what a six-year-old can.
 
Spindrift said:
Don't take it out on Einstein if you can't understand what a six-year-old can.
Click to expand...

And physics professors can't see that Einstein's theories are a hoax! Ha, no wonder why he said things like:

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." -- Albert Einstein

And what did he mean by the following quote?

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein

Careful! Note the "I know not..."
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
And physics professors can't see that Einstein's theories are a hoax! Ha, no wonder why he said things like:

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." -- Albert Einstein
Click to expand...
And we have you for verification of the latter.

You pitch me a softball, I'm gonna hit it.

Anders Lindman said:
And what did he mean by the following quote?

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein

Careful! Note the "I know not..."
Click to expand...
Ooooh,
You know not what that quote means? Sorry I really can't explain it below a six year old level.
 
Spindrift said:
And we have you for verification of the latter.

You pitch me a softball, I'm gonna hit it.


Ooooh,
You know not what that quote means? Sorry I really can't explain it below a six year old level.
Click to expand...

Einstein said "I know not..." Read the quote again. Hint: It's not about nuclear weapons. Hint 2: Nuclear weapons are a hoax. See, I CAN explain things so that a six-year old understands it.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Not trolling. I'm just questioning if people here really know how to calculate relative velocities. Let's look at it again. According to Einstein's special relativity, what is the velocity between two photons traveling in opposite directions? The setting is a laboratory where the photons are sent in opposite directions at the same time, and the time it takes for each photon to travel the distance of 10 meters is measured. The observer is the scientist(s) doing the experiment.

I contacted a scientist (with a Ph.D. in physics) who told me that the calculated velocity between the two photons according to SR is 1c, one time the speed of light. What do you think it is?
Click to expand...

"I contacted...he told me..."

This is MEANINGLESS without explicit definition of the reference frame. Which is exactly the point people have been trying to get across to you all thread. From a single reference frame, yes, it is possible to have two photons with a difference in velocity of 2C between them. But within that same reference frame (or any other meaningful one) the velocity of EACH photon is only 1C.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Einstein said "I know not..." Read the quote again. Hint: It's not about nuclear weapons. Hint 2: Nuclear weapons are a hoax. See, I CAN explain things so that a six-year old understands it.
Click to expand...
I'm done playing with you if all you're going to do is string together random nonsensical sentences. It's been fun but I have to wash the soda off my screen.
 
nomuse said:
"I contacted...he told me..."

This is MEANINGLESS without explicit definition of the reference frame. Which is exactly the point people have been trying to get across to you all thread. From a single reference frame, yes, it is possible to have two photons with a difference in velocity of 2C between them. But within that same reference frame (or any other meaningful one) the velocity of EACH photon is only 1C.
Click to expand...

Let me guess: You don't have a Ph.D. in physics. The observer is the scientist(s) doing the experiment. The velocity that is measured is between two photons sent in opposite directions.

According to the scientist I contacted, the relative velocity between the two photons is 1c when using SR (actually he used an example of particles traveling 0.99c or something like that). And you are claiming that it is 2c?
 
Spindrift said:
I'm done playing with you if all you're going to do is string together random nonsensical sentences. It's been fun but I have to wash the soda off my screen.
Click to expand...

But I'm not done yet. I thought you would ask me about the atom bomb hoax, how I would explain that to a 6-year-old child.

I would ask the child: "A cloud next to an atom bomb, would it survive the explosion?"

And the child replies: "No way!"

Then I show the child this video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtSt5XZ7fq4

The child says: "Unreal!"

To which I reply: "Bingo. You are correct and the film is fake."

And then the child asks: "Do you have any film showing a real atom bomb?"

I tell the child: "That was what they call a real atom bomb."
 
Anders Lindman said:
But I'm not done yet. I thought you would ask me about the atom bomb hoax, how I would explain that to a 6-year-old child.

I would ask the child: "A cloud next to an atom bomb, would it survive the explosion?"

And the child replies: "No way!"

Then I show the child this video clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtSt5XZ7fq4

The child says: "Unreal!"

To which I reply: "Bingo. You are correct and the film is fake."

And then the child asks: "Do you have any film showing a real atom bomb?"

I tell the child: "That was what they call a real atom bomb."
Click to expand...

Hint...what's the cloud you see in the early parts of the explosion?

Understand that and you might understand why the clouds are not disturbed until that reaches them.
 
nomuse said:
Hint...what's the cloud you see in the early parts of the explosion?

Understand that and you might understand why the clouds are not disturbed until that reaches them.
Click to expand...

There are several clouds. Look at the one on the right in the video with fake shadows airbrushed on it. Then at the end of the clip that cloud is still intact.

Here is another clip showing how the camera remains perfectly steady even when filming closeup shots of what is supposed to be real buildings being blown up by an atom bomb explosion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqyBzXYZPoM

Could it be a result of digital stabilization of the film? Maybe, but I doubt it. It would be interesting to see the original film. Was a mechanical stabilizing mounting of the film camera used? Maybe, but again I doubt it.
 
I'm going to regret this, but...in your opinion, what is it that makes it necessary for atomic weapons to be fake? Would it be that you disbelieve in fission itself?
 
nomuse said:
I'm going to regret this, but...in your opinion, what is it that makes it necessary for atomic weapons to be fake? Would it be that you disbelieve in fission itself?
Click to expand...

The fake films of atom bomb explosions is one thing. The Manhattan project happened to be finished just before the war was completely over. A bit too good timing imo. The Japanese government could use the atom bombs as an excuse to surrender and save face, while the U.S. got the world to believe they had a super weapon, and then a few years later they made sure the Soviet Union also claimed to have nukes so that they could start the Cold War hoax to keep the citizens on both sides in line.

Here is a long video about how the Soviet nuclear program was faked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK15iLD19qE
 
So, all the nuclear weapons set off in atmosphere from 1946 to 1963 by the US, USSR, UK and France were faked or were just really big conventional bombs?

Conventional explosives aren't that energetic for the volume. Go online checkout the video for OP SNOWBALL to checkout what 1kt of explosives takes up in space. The weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki let alone those used in the 50s would be orders of magnitude bigger.
 
Border Reiver said:
So, all the nuclear weapons set off in atmosphere from 1946 to 1963 by the US, USSR, UK and France were faked or were just really big conventional bombs?

Conventional explosives aren't that energetic for the volume. Go online checkout the video for OP SNOWBALL to checkout what 1kt of explosives takes up in space. The weapons used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki let alone those used in the 50s would be orders of magnitude bigger.
Click to expand...

Some of the explosions would have required a lot of conventional explosives to be faked. It could have been done like in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VANyY87-_Q
 
And of course the countless soldiers, sailors and airmen who witnessed many of the test shots from 46 to 63, some of whom have developed particular cancers as a result of exposure to these elements are all part of the hoax?

Alright not countless, there are just over 900 Cdn Forces members who witnessed atmospheric tests, and I'm fairly certain that other western govt's kept track of their own service people. This is a not insubstantial number of people to either keep in the conspiracy for over 65 years.

I'm calling it BS
 
The banking elite benefit from funding both (all) sides in wars. And Hitler was funded by international banks if I remember correctly. The Cold War scam was then created by the international bankers probably. Then later they needed to have a military space race, but the public may not agree with that and so they fooled the American people and made them believe that they were going to the moon when in reality it was NRO who was the real deal with a lot of effort to put satellites into space to secure U.S. military preeminence in space (the Soviet Union had already sent Sputnik into orbit, a very 'high ground' threatening position militarily speaking). So they fooled JFK to order a moon mission and then they sacrificed him and let Lyndon Johnson continue with the real space program plus the Apollo hoax public front.

I'm a bit skeptical about Freemasonry really being involved with the hoax much as this song suggests, but the parts about the bankers and Stanley Kubrick are correct I believe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3er7IZLRek
 
Border Reiver said:
And of course the countless soldiers, sailors and airmen who witnessed many of the test shots from 46 to 63, some of whom have developed particular cancers as a result of exposure to these elements are all part of the hoax?

Alright not countless, there are just over 900 Cdn Forces members who witnessed atmospheric tests, and I'm fairly certain that other western govt's kept track of their own service people. This is a not insubstantial number of people to either keep in the conspiracy for over 65 years.

I'm calling it BS
Click to expand...

Cancer statistics could have been faked. The mushroom clouds could be made fairly big with conventional explosives. And the witnesses always wore goggles so they couldn't tell exactly how bright the explosions really were: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWz-xpbKcQ0
 
Anders Lindman said:
Was it you who claimed the relative velocity is 2c?
Click to expand...

Relative to the observer, nothing can go faster than 1c.

So the observer sees one photon flying away at 1c, and another flying the opposite direction at 1c. He can say, "the relative velocity between the two is 2c", but from the viewpoint of the observer, nothing is moving faster than 1c.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom