Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Physics Based On Einstein's Errors

Relativity Einstein Big Bang LIGO

  • Please log in to reply
98 replies to this topic

#1 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 14 October 2018 - 12:21 PM

The deeper you look into Special and General Relativity, the clearer you see that it's just one twisted mass of error. There's literately nothing that can be salvaged from the hypothesis. So where does that leave other branches of modern Science that are using these failed theories as a basis? Such as in Cosmology, we have deduced that the universe began from a Big Bang, but without Einstein's GR this would not be the assumption. Same with LIGO trying to detect "gravitational waves", this can't be what they were looking at, as there is no such thing as a "fabric of time-space". I note that every single scrap of "supporting evidence" for Relativity based theories, is of the category I call "gnat fart results". The numbers are infinitesimal and the effects could have been caused by any number of things, including cherry picking over data, and plain old lies. Scientific Fraud is not uncommon, so cannot be ruled out when it comes to someone claiming to have found supporting evidence for what is effectively an irrational hypothesis. So where to begin? Maybe being very critical of Einstein's hypothesis is the only useful course. I like the madness of Special Relativity, it's a gold mine of contradictions. Please view my two videos for background on SR to set up somewhere to begin the discussion. https://www.bitchute...o/9CK9E5J5pGwZ/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/SRV45pZlWXYs

#2 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2669 posts

Posted 14 October 2018 - 01:59 PM

The deeper you look into Special and General Relativity, the clearer you see that it's just one twisted mass of error. There's literately nothing that can be salvaged from the hypothesis. So where does that leave other branches of modern Science that are using these failed theories as a basis? Such as in Cosmology, we have deduced that the universe began from a Big Bang, but without Einstein's GR this would not be the assumption. Same with LIGO trying to detect "gravitational waves", this can't be what they were looking at, as there is no such thing as a "fabric of time-space". I note that every single scrap of "supporting evidence" for Relativity based theories, is of the category I call "gnat fart results". The numbers are infinitesimal and the effects could have been caused by any number of things, including cherry picking over data, and plain old lies. Scientific Fraud is not uncommon, so cannot be ruled out when it comes to someone claiming to have found supporting evidence for what is effectively an irrational hypothesis. So where to begin? Maybe being very critical of Einstein's hypothesis is the only useful course. I like the madness of Special Relativity, it's a gold mine of contradictions. Please view my two videos for background on SR to set up somewhere to begin the discussion. https://www.bitchute...o/9CK9E5J5pGwZ/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/SRV45pZlWXYs

"There's literately nothing that can be salvaged from the hypothesis." Thus demonstrating, at a stroke, the illiteracy of the poster. 

 

Is QM poop, by the way? I mean, we might as well pull down the whole house of cards while we are at it. 


Edited by exchemist, 14 October 2018 - 02:04 PM.


#3 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 14 October 2018 - 03:28 PM

How did you decide that I cant read based on my appraisal of the value of SR?

 

You method does not appear to be very scientific.

 

And yes, you are correct, QM is poop.

Just more mysticism based on the religion or Scientism, using the teachings of Kabbalah.  Or that's what it seems to be most aligned to, which may be just coincidental, despite the number of leading Physicists that refer to Kabbal.

 

But I'm more interested in discussing the damage that Relativity has done to physics, and what can be done to correct it.

Physics is much more robust if you remove Relativism and QM, so no need to bring down the whole house of cards.  (or a better metaphor would be a house of straw)  Either way, since the late 1800's, a creeping disease has crept into Physics, and now fantasy has become acceptable as a principal of science.



#4 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2922 posts

Posted 14 October 2018 - 04:07 PM

"There's literately nothing that can be salvaged from the hypothesis." Thus demonstrating, at a stroke, the illiteracy of the poster. 

 

Is QM poop, by the way? I mean, we might as well pull down the whole house of cards while we are at it. 

 

Not just illiteracy but also ignorance. I wonder if this poster will end up like moronium.



#5 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2922 posts

Posted 14 October 2018 - 04:08 PM

How did you decide that I cant read based on my appraisal of the value of SR?

 

Yeah... you really do have the same opinion with Moronium on the subject. 



#6 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 14 October 2018 - 08:02 PM

Great, the typical reply from those who have no answer, the old duck and dodge.

Say nothing of substance, nothing relevant to the topic, and claim the high ground despite having only insulted the opponent. 

This is the Einstein way I guess.

 

I suggest you come up with something to do with , um,   I don't know......     PHYSICS!



#7 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2669 posts

Posted 15 October 2018 - 01:25 AM

Great, the typical reply from those who have no answer, the old duck and dodge.

Say nothing of substance, nothing relevant to the topic, and claim the high ground despite having only insulted the opponent. 

This is the Einstein way I guess.

 

I suggest you come up with something to do with , um,   I don't know......     PHYSICS!

Anti-relativity cranks are two a penny on internet science discussion forums (along with creationists, perpetual motion cranks and climate change deniers). So unless you have a particularly interesting argument to refute, people may be disinclined to give you much time.  

 

Personally, I like the perpetual motion cranks the best. Often they are quite ingenious and it takes a while to spot where the error in their reasoning lies (apart from the obvious violation of the laws of TD). So it can be an interesting puzzle to solve. I'm not specially into relativity cranks myself as I'm not a real physicist, but there may be others here more enthused by whatever your argument may be, if you can put one forward.

 

I have however replied to your questioning of the evidence for SR, on your other thread, as this is easy 6th form stuff.  

 

If you want to take a pop at quantum theory, while you are at it, I might have a go at refuting your argument. :)


Edited by exchemist, 15 October 2018 - 01:26 AM.


#8 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 15 October 2018 - 02:43 AM

Anti-relativity cranks are two a penny on internet science discussion forums (along with creationists, perpetual motion cranks and climate change deniers). So unless you have a particularly interesting argument to refute, people may be disinclined to give you much time.  

 

Personally, I like the perpetual motion cranks the best. Often they are quite ingenious and it takes a while to spot where the error in their reasoning lies (apart from the obvious violation of the laws of TD). So it can be an interesting puzzle to solve. I'm not specially into relativity cranks myself as I'm not a real physicist, but there may be others here more enthused by whatever your argument may be, if you can put one forward.

 

I have however replied to your questioning of the evidence for SR, on your other thread, as this is easy 6th form stuff.  

 

If you want to take a pop at quantum theory, while you are at it, I might have a go at refuting your argument. :)

Ok, I'll look at my other posts.  Strange how you lump people who don't agree with you into the same camp.  I don't agree with perpetual motion or flat earth or creationists, but I find the rationality of relativity to be totally lacking.  Its nonsensical which ever way I look at it.  As far a climate change is concerned, thats a political movement as far as I can see. There is no science in it.  But QM? well I think its mystical religious tripe, but I wont go into it, as I don't have enough material to argue my position, so i just stick to SR.



#9 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2637 posts

Posted 15 October 2018 - 04:02 AM

Ok, I'll look at my other posts.  Strange how you lump people who don't agree with you into the same camp.  I don't agree with perpetual motion or flat earth or creationists, but I find the rationality of relativity to be totally lacking.  Its nonsensical which ever way I look at it.  As far a climate change is concerned, thats a political movement as far as I can see. There is no science in it.  But QM? well I think its mystical religious tripe, but I wont go into it, as I don't have enough material to argue my position, so i just stick to SR.

SR is outdated. Talking bad about SR is like talking bad about newtonina physics. Yes, it's wrong in a few areas. It's also close-enough-to-right in the areas it's used in to just be treated as right in those cases. There's much newer stuff, it makes LIGO work, your GPS more accurate, and all in all is a thing. After you dive into that pool people worth debating will bother debating you beyond a couple wiki links. 



#10 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2669 posts

Posted 15 October 2018 - 04:22 AM

Ok, I'll look at my other posts.  Strange how you lump people who don't agree with you into the same camp.  I don't agree with perpetual motion or flat earth or creationists, but I find the rationality of relativity to be totally lacking.  Its nonsensical which ever way I look at it.  As far a climate change is concerned, thats a political movement as far as I can see. There is no science in it.  But QM? well I think its mystical religious tripe, but I wont go into it, as I don't have enough material to argue my position, so i just stick to SR.

I lump together people who object to major parts of well-established science on internet forums. It seems to me they must all believe in some sort of vast conspiracy theory for propagating falsehood. "Everyone is wrong except me" isn't a terribly convincing opening gambit in most subjects and certainly not in science. 

 

Your opinion of QM, which I know a little about, serves to confirm my general impression of you. If you think QM is tripe, then you must think the whole of modern chemistry is wrong, since you cannot discuss anything in chemistry for more than about 5 minutes without relying on some principle derived from QM. 


Edited by exchemist, 15 October 2018 - 04:26 AM.


#11 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1285 posts

Posted 15 October 2018 - 02:17 PM

I am sick of repeatedly explaining relativity, could you anti-relativity people just stop because seriously it is starting to get annoying repeatedly discussing the same-thing over and over again. Time is relative, Length is Relative, Energy-mass is the cause of this relativity, it has been literally proven repeatedly, now stop. It was derived from the derivative of COS(f(x)).

 

 

198829.image0.jpg

einsteinsimp.jpg

 

 

There is going to be a new rule of thumb after this anti-relativity bombardment if your theory doesn't have a Tuv or Guv in it, it is WRONG!


Edited by VictorMedvil, 15 October 2018 - 02:29 PM.


#12 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 15 October 2018 - 03:34 PM

I am sick of repeatedly explaining relativity, could you anti-relativity people just stop because seriously it is starting to get annoying repeatedly discussing the same-thing over and over again. Time is relative, Length is Relative, Energy-mass is the cause of this relativity, it has been literally proven repeatedly, now stop. It was derived from the derivative of COS(f(x)).

 

 

198829.image0.jpg

einsteinsimp.jpg

 

 

There is going to be a new rule of thumb after this anti-relativity bombardment if your theory doesn't have a Tuv or Guv in it, it is WRONG!

But the other member, Eldritch Horror,  just said that SR and presumably GR, all of Einsteins stuff is outdated, and not really totally correct, its just sort of OK ish to use sometimes, as we have better stuff now.  SR was not even worth defending.  So which one of you to believe?  And saying over and over again that time is relative and length is relative does not make it come true, it remains a fairy tale.



#13 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 15 October 2018 - 03:50 PM

SR is outdated. Talking bad about SR is like talking bad about newtonina physics. Yes, it's wrong in a few areas. It's also close-enough-to-right in the areas it's used in to just be treated as right in those cases. There's much newer stuff, it makes LIGO work, your GPS more accurate, and all in all is a thing. After you dive into that pool people worth debating will bother debating you beyond a couple wiki links. 

If SR is incorrect in ANY way, (a claim only you are making, other relativists will strongly disagree) then ALL of SR is wrong. And then you don't get GR either in that case.

NO SR, no GR then no Quantum, as its intertwined,  they are trying to complete the marriage between relativity and QM currently.

So rather then pretending that a criticism of SR is of no value and is that SR not really that important, you could just go watch my video and show where it is wrong.

https://www.bitchute...eo/SRV45pZlWXYs



#14 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2637 posts

Posted 15 October 2018 - 04:00 PM

If SR is incorrect in ANY way, (a claim only you are making, other relativists will strongly disagree) then ALL of SR is wrong. And then you don't get GR either in that case.

NO SR, no GR then no Quantum, as its intertwined,  they are trying to complete the marriage between relativity and QM currently.

So rather then pretending that a criticism of SR is of no value and is that SR not really that important, you could just go watch my video and show where it is wrong.

https://www.bitchute...eo/SRV45pZlWXYs

no, you're taking my words out of context, gr is a corretion to SR like I was saying. N-brane theories are one of the things that might be the correction to GR and allowing a true UFT. No thanks, I'm not interested in view-counting your video with zero preamble.



#15 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 15 October 2018 - 04:13 PM

no, you're taking my words out of context, gr is a corretion to SR like I was saying. N-brane theories are one of the things that might be the correction to GR and allowing a true UFT. No thanks, I'm not interested in view-counting your video with zero preamble.

bury your head in the sand, run away and hide, someone has made a video that you might not be able to explain!  The video IS the preamble.

A 3 minute video is worth about 100 pages of writing.

Ive challenged SR and you cant be bothered to find out why. weak.



#16 Super Polymath

Super Polymath

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1528 posts

Posted 15 October 2018 - 04:33 PM

The deeper you look into Special and General Relativity, the clearer you see that it's just one twisted mass of error. There's literately nothing that can be salvaged from the hypothesis. So where does that leave other branches of modern Science that are using these failed theories as a basis? Such as in Cosmology, we have deduced that the universe began from a Big Bang, but without Einstein's GR this would not be the assumption. Same with LIGO trying to detect "gravitational waves", this can't be what they were looking at, as there is no such thing as a "fabric of time-space". I note that every single scrap of "supporting evidence" for Relativity based theories, is of the category I call "gnat fart results". The numbers are infinitesimal and the effects could have been caused by any number of things, including cherry picking over data, and plain old lies. Scientific Fraud is not uncommon, so cannot be ruled out when it comes to someone claiming to have found supporting evidence for what is effectively an irrational hypothesis. So where to begin? Maybe being very critical of Einstein's hypothesis is the only useful course. I like the madness of Special Relativity, it's a gold mine of contradictions. Please view my two videos for background on SR to set up somewhere to begin the discussion. https://www.bitchute...o/9CK9E5J5pGwZ/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/SRV45pZlWXYs

Don't criticize him for learning the hard way, after all that's how the real ones learn. Max Born & Feynman were employed frauds. 


Edited by Super Polymath, 15 October 2018 - 04:33 PM.


#17 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 605 posts

Posted 15 October 2018 - 05:21 PM

Don't criticize him for learning the hard way, after all that's how the real ones learn. Max Born & Feynman were employed frauds. 

I don't get the context or who you are talking about here. or the reference to born and feynman.  Please go on.....





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Relativity, Einstein, Big Bang, LIGO