• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, they have this thing called the "scientific method". This method takes into account blind spots, prejudices, and all manner of bias, and corrects for them. It ensures that we know the actual truth regardless of what we or our paycheck-signing masters want to believe.
 
Belz... said:
Right. So everybody is in on this conspiracy except you. Sorry, Anders, but you smell, which is why we didn't tell you. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No, very few people. Not even the professors in physics know that Einstein's theories are a hoax. They too only follow what gatekeeper scientists have published in prestigious scientific journals etc. A few scientific papers that endlessly are referenced.
 
Anders Lindman said:
No, very few people. Not even the professors in physics know that Einstein's theories are a hoax. They too only follow what gatekeeper scientists have published in prestigious scientific journals etc. A few scientific papers that endlessly are referenced.
Click to expand...

Anders do you have an example of something you would consider difficult to fake, thus putting doubt on your theory? In other words, what in your mind would falsify your beliefs? I suspect that there is absolutely nothing you cannot hand wave away, no matter how compelling it is to rational people.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Fortunately, they have this thing called the "scientific method". This method takes into account blind spots, prejudices, and all manner of bias, and corrects for them. It ensures that we know the actual truth regardless of what we or our paycheck-signing masters want to believe.
Click to expand...

Not always. For example HIV is a hoax I believe. And thousands of research papers have been published about HIV without any of the scientists actually having checked if there really is such virus in the first place. They just cite some original scientific papers that claim HIV has been discovered (isolated) and then they go on and endlessly study individual molecules, receptors etc supposedly related to the virus.
 
Anders, as many others have pointed out, myself included, you can actually test these things yourself, and relatively (badumdumtish!) easily. You can also actually learn the maths all by yourself without anyone else over your shoulder.

And yet you refuse to do so, and refuse to actually learn anything about the thing you are stating, point blank, is wrong.

Why?
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
Anders do you have an example of something you would consider difficult to fake, thus putting doubt on your theory? In other words, what in your mind would falsify your beliefs? I suspect that there is absolutely nothing you cannot hand wave away, no matter how compelling it is to rational people.
Click to expand...

Faking relativistic calculations in GPS receivers would perhaps be difficult, but I read that they only need to adjust the clocks in the GPS satellites and that will take care of the relativistic effects so that the receivers don't have to bother with it. And faking the clocks in the satellites is easy.
 
nvidiot said:
Anders, as many others have pointed out, myself included, you can actually test these things yourself, and relatively (badumdumtish!) easily. You can also actually learn the maths all by yourself without anyone else over your shoulder.

And yet you refuse to do so, and refuse to actually learn anything about the thing you are stating, point blank, is wrong.

Why?
Click to expand...

I don't know how to test for relativistic effects without costly experiments.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Not always. For example HIV is a hoax I believe. And thousands of research papers have been published about HIV without any of the scientists actually having checked if there really is such virus in the first place. They just cite some original scientific papers that claim HIV has been discovered (isolated) and then they go on and endlessly study individual molecules, receptors etc supposedly related to the virus.
Click to expand...

Time for yet another facePalm.

You do realize that the advantage we have in building on original research is that we don't need to repeat it ad nauseum when doing the follow on research? Otherwise, we'd be proving photosynthesis everytime we look at ANY plant research.
 
Border Reiver said:
Time for yet another facePalm.

You do realize that the advantage we have in building on original research is that we don't need to repeat it ad nauseum when doing the follow on research? Otherwise, we'd be proving photosynthesis everytime we look at ANY plant research.
Click to expand...

Of course. That's a must or we would be reinventing the wheel over and over. The problem is that scientists start to blindly trust other big 'authorities' in science and just cite their (often decades old) papers. In the case of HIV everybody probably cites what Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier claimed. So a whole mountain of research, all perfectly valid in itself, can be done based on a false foundation.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Faking relativistic calculations in GPS receivers would perhaps be difficult, but I read that they only need to adjust the clocks in the GPS satellites and that will take care of the relativistic effects so that the receivers don't have to bother with it. And faking the clocks in the satellites is easy.
Click to expand...

So your answer is you can't believe anything because everything can be faked?
 
twinstead said:
So your answer is you can't believe anything because everything can be faked?
Click to expand...

No, relativistic calculations in GPS receivers for the public market may be difficult to fake, because there are so many manufacturers of such receivers (unless they all use the same microchip from one manufacturer that has on-chip calculations, in which case that would be easy to fake).
 
twinstead said:
So your answer is you can't believe anything because everything can be faked?
Click to expand...

I think Anders has the impression that everything is fake(able). Everything from Saturn V rockets, nuclear weapons to scientific test results. Shows how much grasp of reality he has. I think it's pointless to even try to debate him. If one is that delusional, nothing will change one's mind. Remember that "wrong engine at GZ"-thread? How many pages without result was that? :rolleyes:
 
Greedo said:
Saturn V rockets,
Click to expand...

The Saturn V rocket is real, but I'm not sure it was as large as they claim. I think the Saturn V rocket was designed for the secret NRO to put satellites and other military equipment into space.
 
Greedo said:
I think Anders has the impression that everything is fake(able). Everything from Saturn V rockets, nuclear weapons to scientific test results. Shows how much grasp of reality he has. I think it's pointless to even try to debate him. If one is that delusional, nothing will change one's mind. Remember that "wrong engine at GZ"-thread? How many pages without result was that? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think he's trolling, as I doubt he'd be able to function in society if he really believed the things he posts here.

Which is fine, it's not against the MA or anything, it just means that he's only really worth replying to if you can provide some interesting responses for other people to read, or if you find it amusing at the time.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The Saturn V rocket is real, but I'm not sure it was as large as they claim. I think the Saturn V rocket was designed for the secret NRO to put satellites and other military equipment into space.
Click to expand...


WHY!?!
 
Anders Lindman said:
And faking the clocks in the satellites is easy.
Click to expand...

Simply faking the clocks would involve hundreds of people because the clock designs are extensively reviewed and then the clocks themselves are extensively tested at various levels of integration. A great many of the people involved in those reviews and tests would have to be in on it.

I don't know whether or not the commercial receivers have to directly account for other relativistic effects aside from Doppler shifting, but various universities and other organizations do some remarkably accurate analyses of GPS signals, and they have to account for all the more subtle relativistic effects.

Does your conspiracy involve all physics professors so that they can make sure that none of their grad students pick GPS-related topics for theses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom