Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

[Drachasor]

A few gatekeeper scientists at CERN probably, but the vast majority of the scientists at CERN have no clue that Einstein's theories are a hoax. They just do their compartmentalized part, and trust the old results created by gatekeeper scientists that confirm Einstein's theories.

You don't understand. All these people have been doing work with the theories, designing experiments, using equipment on their own, programming equipment, etc, etc. You can't just have a few people do that. Pretty much everyone outside of pure theorists would have to be in on it. That means everyone involved in experimental design. Not just scientists as well, but also technical staff. Even if they could be tricked at CERN, they would still have done things on their own IN THIS FIELD as part of their thesis (and frankly, grad school in general where people operate lab equipment that can confirm some of this stuff).

And again, if there were gatekeepers, there's no way they'd let things get out of hand. The whole point of their existence would be to only let out what they WANT to have let out. If that meant staging an accident and killing a rebellious research team in order to maintain power, they'd do it.

You are simultaneously having your conspiracy be super-powerful and then extremely impotent. That's not consistent.

 

[Anders Lindman]

You know... "challenge" doesn't necessarily mean "attempt to disprove". Sometimes you challenge theories to see how they hold up to new ideas. Einstein's theories have held up to such challenges in the past. Some parts may not hold perfectly true forever, sure, but that's OK.

Also, if there was such a large number of mainstream scientists that believe Einstein's theories to be wildly incorrect, there'd be much more noise about it than you... posting on a message board...

I'm sorry, but you're either trolling or delusional. In the unfortunate case that it may be the latter, I suggest you seek help. It's a good sign if you do so willingly.

I know that many people don't believe the government could lie to the people on such a massive scale. It's called Big Lie propaganda technique. One example is the Apollo moon mission hoax. I think NASA has told Richard C. Hoagland that he can talk about man-made, semi-transparent glass structures on the moon. But he is NOT allowed to reveal that what he is talking about is the Scotchlite background NASA used to fake the Apollo moon images. So Hoagland talks about ludicrous things such as it being actual huge buildings on the moon, while he probably very well knows that those patterns he has found on the Apollo photos are a result from the Scotchlite screen used for front projection Hollywood effects. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0StZZqrGCg

 

[Anders Lindman]

Even if they could be tricked at CERN, they would still have done things on their own IN THIS FIELD as part of their thesis (and frankly, grad school in general where people operate lab equipment that can confirm some of this stuff).

My guess is that, no they haven't. They just trust old results published by prestigious scientists in the past.

 

[Anders Lindman]

And again, if there were gatekeepers, there's no way they'd let things get out of hand. The whole point of their existence would be to only let out what they WANT to have let out.

That's correct. So I believe the gatekeeper scientists now WANT the Einstein hoax to be exposed. Our civilization needs to move forward and so the shadow powers must start to loosen up the secret stuff a bit. Remember that the shadow powers are always several steps ahead of us ordinary people as some conspiracy researchers have said, so they probably even have control over how the Einstein hoax will be exposed.

 

[Drachasor]

My guess is that, no they haven't. They just trust old results published by prestigious scientists in the past.

No offense, but you have no idea how science or scientists work. Experimentalists are hip-deep in experiments all the time and it starts at the latest in grad school (usually earlier). If there's a conspiracy, all high energy experimentalists and a lot of others ALL have to be in on it.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No offense, but you have no idea how science or scientists work. Experimentalists are hip-deep in experiments all the time and it starts at the latest in grad school (usually earlier). If there's a conspiracy, all high energy experimentalists and a lot of others ALL have to be in on it.

I'm only talking about experiments that will confirm Einstein's relativity theories.

 

[nomuse]

I'm only talking about experiments that will confirm Einstein's relativity theories.

You mean, ANYTHING in cosmology, astronomy of anything beyond the local group or more massive than, well, a small planet, high-energy physics, particle physics......

 

[nomuse]

I know that many people don't believe the government could lie to the people on such a massive scale. It's called Big Lie propaganda technique. One example is the Apollo moon mission hoax. I think NASA has told Richard C. Hoagland that he can talk about man-made, semi-transparent glass structures on the moon. But he is NOT allowed to reveal that what he is talking about is the Scotchlite background NASA used to fake the Apollo moon images. So Hoagland talks about ludicrous things such as it being actual huge buildings on the moon, while he probably very well knows that those patterns he has found on the Apollo photos are a result from the Scotchlite screen used for front projection Hollywood effects. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0StZZqrGCg

That's a confusion of goals and means. Sure, it may be that a more audacious lie is more convincing. But this has NOTHING to do with whether a lie that requires the coordinated effort of millions of people is possible to pull off.

 

[nomuse]

By the way, it is likely Hoagland cribbed the idea of front projection from a less-known but equally monomaniacal Apollo-Hoax believer (whose name temporarily escapes me). Same lad went on endlessly about the symbolism in "The Shining." His work is unconvincing. To me, the only respect he gets is that he is the first Apollo-hoax nutter to actually figure out that "2001" did not use any blue-screen techniques (Kubrick was, at least at the time, a nut for doing it all in-camera).

 

[Roboramma]

From what I understand about Einstein's theory it doesn't say that going faster than light is impossible. Just says that the closer to the speed of light you get, the more mass you accumulate which requires you to spend more energy to go faster.

That's an easy way to understand why we can't accelerate things with mass to the speed of light, but the issue is more complicated than that.

For instance, if a signal could be sent faster than light, in some reference frames that means it arrives before it leaves, which gives the possibility of time travel and all the paradoxes inherent in it.

So it would be easy to propel a neutrino (which has no mass)

Neutrinos do have rest mass, just a very very small rest mass.

faster than light. This might not sound too terribly useful, but imagine enveloping that neutrino in a packet of information: voila, ftl communications.

Even massless particles can't go faster than light, they simply travel at the speed of light.

Now, tachyons are consistent with relativity, but they cannot interact with normal matter, so there's no reason to consider them.

 

[Roboramma]

According to Einstein a person traveling in a rocket near the speed of light around Earth for 5 years will cause 10 years to pass on Earth. That means that the person will experience the entire universe speeding up by a factor of 2. That's a crazy theory. People don't see this because they usually only think of the time difference between Earth and the rocket and forget about the rest of the universe.

According to galileo if I two cars, A and B, are driving on non-parallel roads both moving at the same speed 50km/h, like this:

[The below is an edit to fix my stupid errors]

You'll find that if they both started at the bottom of the diagram, they won't meet. But, if, for instance, Car A measures Car B's vertical velocity at any point along the way, it will be less than his. If, on the other hand they start at a different level vertically on the diagram such that they will meet, you'll note that the vertical distance that Car B travels is less than the vertical distance that Car A travels. This is directly analogous to what happens with time dilation.

Does this mean that by moving on a diagonal Car B has somehow accelerated Car A's vertical (on the diagram) velocity? Obviously not, he hasn't affected Car A at all.

 

[Roboramma]

I don't know the details of general relativity. But what they say is that someone traveling in a rocket 90% of the speed of light relative to Earth would experience 5 years while on Earth 10 years would have passed. So for the person in the rocket that is certainly a contraction of time as a dimension.

A simple way to look at it is that the rocket takes a different path through spacetime. The rocket, therefore, need not be considered to affect space-time in any way, it just takes a different path through it, in much the same way the two cars in my diagram above took different paths and thus recorded different distances.

 

[Anders Lindman]

A simple way to look at it is that the rocket takes a different path through spacetime. The rocket, therefore, need not be considered to affect space-time in any way, it just takes a different path through it, in much the same way the two cars in my diagram above took different paths and thus recorded different distances.

Different paths? Time is not a dimension. It takes an enormous amount of information processing for the universe to progress even a millisecond. And the total amount of information in the universe is increasing moment to moment. To believe that someone can take a different path that will make the whole process of evolution speed up is extremely naive.

 

[Anders Lindman]

That's a confusion of goals and means. Sure, it may be that a more audacious lie is more convincing. But this has NOTHING to do with whether a lie that requires the coordinated effort of millions of people is possible to pull off.

Someone said GPS is an example of how Einstein's relativity must be taken into account. But I am still not convinced that the GPS receivers for the public market need to perform relativity calculations. It seems to me that adjusting the clocks in the GPS satellites is enough to compensate for relativity effects:

"Whoever already dealt with the theory of relativity knows that time runs slower during very fast movements. For satellites moving with a speed of 3874 m/s, clocks run slower when viewed from earth. This relativistic time dilation leads to an inaccuracy of time of approximately 7,2 microseconds per day (1 microsecond = 10-6 seconds).

The theory of relativity also says that time moves the slower the stronger the field of gravitation is. For an observer on the earth surface the clock on board of a satellite is running faster (as the satellite in 20000 km height is exposed to a much weaker field of gravitation than the observer). And this second effect is six times stronger than the time dilation explained above.

Altogether, the clocks of the satellites seem to run a little faster. The shift of time to the observer on earth would be about 38 milliseconds per day and would make up for an total error of approximately 10 km per day. In order that those error do not have to be corrected constantly, the clocks of the satellites were set to 10.229999995453 Mhz instead of 10.23 Mhz but they are operated as if they had 10.23 MHz. By this trick the relativistic effects are compensated once and for all." -- http://www.kowoma.de/en/gps/errors.htm

 

[Drachasor]

I'm only talking about experiments that will confirm Einstein's relativity theories.

That's essentially ALL high energy physics. Anything in an accelerator at all and a ton of other stuff. All of it is dealing with things moving at a high fraction of the speed of light, where relativistic effects are obvious.

 

[Anders Lindman]

That's essentially ALL high energy physics. Anything in an accelerator at all and a ton of other stuff. All of it is dealing with things moving at a high fraction of the speed of light, where relativistic effects are obvious.

Probably most scientists at CERN for example belong the public side of science and research. They are not stupid, but they are, like the rest of us, conditioned to have blind spots in our thinking so that we can't see the big picture. In addition to that, science is highly compartmentalized so that each scientist only works on tiny details of the whole picture and the broader context is given to him or her from past results in science that get endlessly parroted.

I predict that nobody can show me an example of something that verifies Einstein's relativity that couldn't be hoaxed and controlled by a relatively few gatekeeper scientists.

 

[yairhol]

Anders Lindman, what happens if the results at CERN are found to be wrong? will you believe they are wrong or will you say that it is another hoax?

I haven't read all that's been said in this thread but I have read some posts where you said that special relativity and especially the inability to excess the speed of light is a hoax (correct me if I'm wrong).
I'll tell you what's the problem I have with this.
The two famous outcomes from special relativity regarding the speed of light is that an object having a rest mass will have infinite mass when travelling at the speed of light and zero length. The equations that tell us this are called the Lorentz transformation. It has been proved analytically that you can reach the same equations (Lorentz transformation) starting at Maxwell's equations. Now, Maxwell's equations are the principles of all electromagnetics which have and are proven to be correct on a second by second basis, not only in theory but in everyday life. All measurements performed starting from distances smaller than an atom and up to sizes of the known universe correspond amazingly well with Maxwell's equations.
So what you say about the hoax part of special relativity can be proved from another theory which has been proven to be correct (Maxwell's equations).

Are you also denying the fact that time slows down as an object travels faster? You know that this has been proven in laboratory experiments?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Anders Lindman, what happens if the results at CERN are found to be wrong? will you believe they are wrong or will you say that it is another hoax?

I haven't read all that's been said in this thread but I have read some posts where you said that special relativity and especially the inability to excess the speed of light is a hoax (correct me if I'm wrong).
I'll tell you what's the problem I have with this.
The two famous outcomes from special relativity regarding the speed of light is that an object having a rest mass will have infinite mass when travelling at the speed of light and zero length. The equations that tell us this are called the Lorentz transformation. It has been proved analytically that you can reach the same equations (Lorentz transformation) starting at Maxwell's equations. Now, Maxwell's equations are the principles of all electromagnetics which have and are proven to be correct on a second by second basis, not only in theory but in everyday life. All measurements performed starting from distances smaller than an atom and up to sizes of the known universe correspond amazingly well with Maxwell's equations.
So what you say about the hoax part of special relativity can be proved from another theory which has been proven to be correct (Maxwell's equations).

Are you also denying the fact that time slows down as an object travels faster? You know that this has been proven in laboratory experiments?

If the result from CERN turns out wrong then I suspect they have been ordered to lie and say it was a measurement error or something like that when in reality wasn't. Yes, I deny that time can be slowed down. Are you sure Maxwell's equations lead to the same result as Einstein's relativity?

 

[Roboramma]

This diagram is a better illustration of what happens in something like the twin paradox:

Assume Cars A and B start together. As car B moves first away from Car A on the first diagonal path, and then back toward Car A on the second diagonal path, Car B has to accelerate in order to keep up with Car A's forward movement. Thus, by the time they meet up again Car B will have travelled a greater distance than Car A.

 

[Roboramma]

Different paths? Time is not a dimension.

Time is a dimension.

Moreover, physics treats time as a dimension in an entirely self-consistent way that allows it to model reality and make real predictions. So, whatever time is "really", it either is a dimension, or it is as though it were a dimension.

It takes an enormous amount of information processing for the universe to progress even a millisecond.

What "information processing"?

And the total amount of information in the universe is increasing moment to moment.

The total amount of information in the universe is increasing? Do you have any evidence for that?

To believe that someone can take a different path that will make the whole process of evolution speed up is extremely naive.

It won't "make the whole process of evolution speed up", any more than my turning my car will make yours move more slowly.

EDIT: see my post #823 for clarification of what I mean by that last point.