• 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?

Jack by the hedge said:
We already worked out that everything looks suspicious to you. It is not a useful criterion.
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't read my whole post. Take a look at the comment from that other website. That's your evidence that it's looks suspicious, not only to me, but to the poster of that comment.
 
Anders Lindman said:
You obviously didn't read my whole post. Take a look at the comment from that other website. That's your evidence that it's looks suspicious, not only to me, but to the poster of that comment.
Click to expand...

The "poster of that comment" identifies himself as an engineer but doesn't give any contact information. He then goes on to rail against "statists and academic hoaxers on the government dole," and their "worthless science by consensus that has been foisted on us since the 1960's."

I can see why that attitude would appeal to you, since you basically do little more than criticize everyone else. But unfortunately it doesn't really establish the poster as a fair-minded individual. As an engineer myself, with established credentials, I can point to a number of "boneheaded" errors made by the engineering community over the years, such as forgetting to include the dead load in structural computations and connecting two walkways to a suspender meant for only one.

No profession is immune from errors. This is why we engineers work in groups and require personal accountability from our practitioners. Scientists also work in groups, both in the organizations that employ them and as the larger, international scientific community.

The researchers in the Netherlands think they've found CERN's error. That's how science is supposed to work. In the short term someone may produce a seemingly anomalous finding. In the long term, constant ongoing review and attempts to reproduce the findings tend to detect the error, if any. Long-reliable scientific findings aren't overturned immediately by one group of researchers working in isolation, despite what sensationalist media wants to say. Scientists publish anomalous findings in the hopes that others will see things they may have missed.

And none of this teapot tempest is surprising when you consider that American Thinker is a political journal, not a scientific or engineering journal. What also fails to surprise is the notion that you began this thread claiming Einstein was proven wrong and that the world's stodgy scientiic Establishment scientific needed to embrace the Truth of the bogus Einstein, but now you're trumpeting the vindication of Einstein and criticizing the world's stodgy scientific Establishment for not getting it right the first time.

It seems you don't care whether Einstein is wrong or right, just as long as you can criticize the mainstream for something.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Yes, I plan to break down the conspiracy in stages.
Click to expand...

I don't see the part where you actually gather evidence or make any sort of effort to test the validity of your claims. All I see is you piling more idle conjecture on top of the idle conjecture you've already spewed. How does that result in an conclusion you can ask anyone to respect?
 
Anders is creative, that is what makes me think so.

Belz... said:
(This should be good.)

What makes you think so ?
Click to expand...

Anders is creative, that is what makes me think so. He ain't watchin' tv mate. Anders loves life. He is out in the world observing, thinking for himself, being inspired by things, learning, being right, being wrong, being happy, making you guys mad.

Anders is one of our own Nick Terry's SNOWFLAKES. Anders is so so so beautiful!
 
Last edited:
Patrick1000 said:
Anders is creative, that is what makes me think so. He ain't watchin' tv mate. Anders loves life. He is out in the world observing, thinking for himself, being inspired by things, learning, being right, being wrong, being happy, making you guys mad.
Click to expand...

And why do you think somebody who has no clue telling people who do that they don't know what they're talking about wouldn't make them mad.

Wouldn't it make you mad?
 
Patrick1000 said:
Anders is creative, that is what makes me think so. He ain't watchin' tv mate. Anders loves life. He is out in the world observing, thinking for himself, being inspired by things, learning, being right, being wrong, being happy, making you guys mad.

Anders is one of our own Nick Terry's SNOWFLAKES. Anders is so so so beautiful!
Click to expand...

No restating blithering nonsense while ignoring reality, that makes people mad, and BTW Patrick is there a reason why you've abandoned your Moon Hoax thread since it was put on moderated status?
 
JayUtah said:
now you're trumpeting the vindication of Einstein
Click to expand...

Oh no, the latest theory is about how CERN didn't include Einstein's relativity in their calculations because that would have made them inconsistent. To remove the inconsistency they had to remove the effect of Einstein's relativity which shows that it is a false theory.
 
JayUtah said:
I don't see the part where you actually gather evidence or make any sort of effort to test the validity of your claims. All I see is you piling more idle conjecture on top of the idle conjecture you've already spewed. How does that result in an conclusion you can ask anyone to respect?
Click to expand...

I just have to wait. The scientists who claim that CERN didn't include Einstein's relativity for the moving satellite will have their paper peer-reviewed. Then they will have to actually check how CERN really did the calculations and with actual data from the experiments.
 
Peer-review of the CERN experiment

Peer-reviewer 1: Wow, check this out: The speed of the neutrinos is measured to 60 nanoseconds with a small variance but when Special Relativity is included, the speed varies all over the place.

Peer-reviewer 2: Don't be concerned about that. That's just noise in the data.

PR1: But it shows that Einstein's Special Relativity is wrong!

PR2: Shut up. Einstein was infallible, your are not. Now ignore that data.

PR1: Ok boss.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Oh no, the latest theory is about how CERN didn't include Einstein's relativity in their calculations...
Click to expand...

But that misstates the issue. The problem is not that CERN ignored relativity, but that they used the wrong reference frame in their relativity computations. You're trying to shoehorn the facts into your preconceived opinion.

I do apologize for accusing you wrongly of flip-flopping on this particular point. It's quite difficult to follow what your claim du jour is.
 
JayUtah said:
But that misstates the issue. The problem is not that CERN ignored relativity, but that they used the wrong reference frame in their relativity computations. You're trying to shoehorn the facts into your preconceived opinion.

I do apologize for accusing you wrongly of flip-flopping on this particular point. It's quite difficult to follow what your claim du jour is.
Click to expand...

But I am saying that the latest conspiracy theory is about how they DID remove the relativity calculations. CERN said that they have taken effects of relativity into account if I remember correctly. Of course they have, since there are no such effects to be taken into consideration! Tricky, eh? :D
 
Anders Lindman said:
But I am saying that the latest conspiracy theory is about how they DID remove the relativity calculations. CERN said that they have taken effects of relativity into account if I remember correctly. Of course they have, since there are no such effects to be taken into consideration! Tricky, eh? :D
Click to expand...

Idiotic is the word actually, your claim that relativity is some sort of hoax has been refuted endlessly, that you choose to disregard those explanations is frankly rather pathetic, something you and your defender Patrick have in common.
 
Anders Lindman said:
CERN said that they have taken effects of relativity into account if I remember correctly.
Click to expand...

But there is more than one way to do that. The question is whether they initially did it correctly. Your memory isn't a problem; your comprehension is. You don't understand basic physics. You don't understand relativistic physics. You haven't been able to demonstrate a working understanding of any of the several topics you've tried to bring up here.

Your "latest" conspiracy theory, as formulated from day to day, is little more than the latest recitation of things you don't understand. Yet for some reason you seem to think it's okay to be lazy and not actually learn the relevant sciences.

Tricky, eh? :D
Click to expand...

No, just characteristically naive.
 
Garrison said:
Idiotic is the word actually, your claim that relativity is some sort of hoax has been refuted endlessly, that you choose to disregard those explanations is frankly rather pathetic, something you and your defender Patrick have in common.
Click to expand...

Actually, as a source I posted earlier said, no experiment verifying the speed of light limit for a moving source relative to an observer has been done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom