Einstein Was Wrong !

[cv5]

No offence...this s a bible discussion site and too be honest, your flippant, mouthy remarks that you have made while lifting yourself up above everyone while thinking you know something is a little like bloviated blather..............and to take it one step further....I could care less about Einstein and or your personal vendetta against him like you are all that and a bag of chips when it comes to knowledge and or thinking in your ind that you are smarter than anyone in particular.....

So......blather away pal......

Ouch. Anyway.....pls review the links and data I have provided. They are quite compelling. And sorry if I offended anyone. I assure you that I am only interested in denouncing the myths of science.....they are legion.

What I would like to see is individuals here PROVIDING LINKS as research texts. Flame wars do not interest me. I do not want to do all of the heavy lifting and then be excoriated for doing so.

 

[posthuman]

Relativity indicates that the "time" on a mountaintop is slower than time at sea level....AND IT ACCUMULATES.

by a few billionths of a second over 100 years. so?

Einstein didn't come up with big-bang cosmology, nor did he originate any of the proposed ages of the universe. Aristotle for example taught a view that the physical universe has existed forever, and as early as the 1200's Grosseteste scientifically described models of a finite universe with a definite origin in space and time according to universal physical laws.

if the idea that the universe has a definite beginning is what you're trying to overturn, it didn't come from Einstein, and it actually is what the Bible teaches - in the beginning, He created it. the account of creation tells us He spoke, and it was - all things have an origin in the word of His mouth.
if it's about the age of the universe that you're arguing, that didn't come from Einstein either. i don't believe an old universe necessarily contradicts scripture either, but that's an whole other discussion.

do you believe Doppler-shift doesn't exist?
you've never heard an ambulance, police car or fire truck go by?

i'm trying to understand exactly what it is you're objecting to.

 

[cv5]

by a few billionths of a second over 100 years. so?

Einstein didn't come up with big-bang cosmology, nor did he originate any of the proposed ages of the universe. Aristotle for example taught a view that the physical universe has existed forever, and as early as the 1200's Grosseteste scientifically described models of a finite universe with a definite origin in space and time according to universal physical laws.

if the idea that the universe has a definite beginning is what you're trying to overturn, it didn't come from Einstein, and it actually is what the Bible teaches - in the beginning, He created it. the account of creation tells us He spoke, and it was - all things have an origin in the word of His mouth.
if it's about the age of the universe that you're arguing, that didn't come from Einstein either. i don't believe an old universe necessarily contradicts scripture either, but that's an whole other discussion.

do you believe Doppler-shift doesn't exist?
you've never heard an ambulance, police car or fire truck go by?

i'm trying to understand exactly what it is you're objecting to.

Study the video and links and get back to me....

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1997JApA...18..455N

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/mapping.pdf

Thank you.

 

[posthuman]

Ouch. Anyway.....pls review the links and data I have provided. They are quite compelling.

i did. i read the whole page in the OP link.
like i said, it's not compelling at all. it is a logically fallacious argument, even if the data sources they cite ((i didn't go through chasing down every citation to verify)) are correct.

last night i tried to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument to you many times. did you get it?

then you made a comment about gravity being electromagnetic. i was excited by this because it is a testable hypothesis. i tested it with thought experiments, and you ignored my objecting questions. then i legitimately performed a legitimate experiment to test your statement, and the result didn't support what you said. so you decided to call me a troll and told me you're 'done' ((because i actually investigated what you said? and used the method of falsification you yourself said to use?))


this is an interesting subject to me, but i'd rather talk about Christ. especially this being the Bible Discussion Forum.
perhaps the thread should be moved to 'Conspiracy Discussion' seeing that the subject is not the Bible, not Christ, but rather a perceived conspiracy in physics willfully lying about the basic nature of the universe.

 

[cv5]

i did. i read the whole page in the OP link.
like i said, it's not compelling at all. it is a logically fallacious argument, even if the data sources they cite ((i didn't go through chasing down every citation to verify)) are correct.

last night i tried to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument to you many times. did you get it?

then you made a comment about gravity being electromagnetic. i was excited by this because it is a testable hypothesis. i tested it with thought experiments, and you ignored my objecting questions. then i legitimately performed a legitimate experiment to test your statement, and the result didn't support what you said. so you decided to call me a troll and told me you're 'done' ((because i actually investigated what you said? and used the method of falsification you yourself said to use?))


this is an interesting subject to me, but i'd rather talk about Christ. especially this being the Bible Discussion Forum.
perhaps the thread should be moved to 'Conspiracy Discussion' seeing that the subject is not the Bible, not Christ, but rather a perceived conspiracy in physics willfully lying about the basic nature of the universe.

Good heavens man......pls read and do your research. Admittedly this will take several months. I have put in thousands of hours into my research. Einstein is wrong. The prevailing (accepted as boilerplate) cosmological creation myths are wrong. The accepted theories pertaining to all stellar objects are wrong. The Hubble deep field and ultra deep field studies are there at your fingertips. What do they indicate?

 

[posthuman]

Study the video and links and get back to me....

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1997JApA...18..455N

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/mapping.pdf

Thank you.

i'm probably not going to watch videos. i have better things to spend time on.

if you can't put these things into your own words how am i supposed to believe you actually understand them yourself? especially when, as i briefly outlined in previous post, you apparently have misconceptions and holes in your own foundational argument?

give me a synopsis please.
better yet, i've actually had a class in which we derived Einstein's field equations from scratch. i understand complex variable analysis and operator notation. can you show me where the derivation for them is 'fake' ? i can do math, and it will be a lot more to the point to explore the topic in that direction since so much of the theoretical physics comes directly from studying these equations -- these are the things being tested in observation.

 

[cv5]

i did. i read the whole page in the OP link.
like i said, it's not compelling at all. it is a logically fallacious argument, even if the data sources they cite ((i didn't go through chasing down every citation to verify)) are correct.

last night i tried to demonstrate the absurdity of the argument to you many times. did you get it?

then you made a comment about gravity being electromagnetic. i was excited by this because it is a testable hypothesis. i tested it with thought experiments, and you ignored my objecting questions. then i legitimately performed a legitimate experiment to test your statement, and the result didn't support what you said. so you decided to call me a troll and told me you're 'done' ((because i actually investigated what you said? and used the method of falsification you yourself said to use?))


this is an interesting subject to me, but i'd rather talk about Christ. especially this being the Bible Discussion Forum.
perhaps the thread should be moved to 'Conspiracy Discussion' seeing that the subject is not the Bible, not Christ, but rather a perceived conspiracy in physics willfully lying about the basic nature of the universe.

conspiracy in physics willfully lying about the basic nature of the universe.

No doubt about that Sir. This is what my investigation indicates.

 

[cv5]

i'm probably not going to watch videos. i have better things to spend time on.

if you can't put these things into your own words how am i supposed to believe you actually understand them yourself? especially when, as i briefly outlined in previous post, you apparently have misconceptions and holes in your own foundational argument?

give me a synopsis please.
better yet, i've actually had a class in which we derived Einstein's field equations from scratch. i understand complex variable analysis and operator notation. can you show me where the derivation for them is 'fake' ? i can do math, and it will be a lot more to the point to explore the topic in that direction since so much of the theoretical physics comes directly from studying these equations -- these are the things being tested in observation.

Watch the video. It is quite elementary. Very simple.

 

[posthuman]

Good heavens man......pls read and do your research. Admittedly this will take several months. I have put in thousands of hours into my research. Einstein is wrong. The prevailing (accepted as boilerplate) cosmological creation myths are wrong. The accepted theories pertaining to all stellar objects are wrong. The Hubble deep field and ultra deep field studies are there at your fingertips. What do they indicate?

please address the direct questions in the post.

is this about the earth being flat?

 

[cv5]

please address the direct questions in the post.

is this about the earth being flat?

No. This is partially about the fact that highly energetic stellar bodies do not require exotic matter to function as they do. Quite the contrary.

 

[posthuman]

No. This is partially about the fact that highly energetic stellar bodies do not require exotic matter to function as they do. Quite the contrary.

what are you calling exotic matter?
do you think Einstein theorized that stars are made of exotic matter?

please address the questions i brought up about your alternative-gravity model and how Einstein has anything to do with big bang cosmology or an old universe.

if you can do math please back up your assertions about the field equations with something tangible.

please explain your wild assertion that inconclusive results are able to falsify theories.

please bring Jesus into this discussion

 

[cv5]

what are you calling exotic matter?
do you think Einstein theorized that stars are made of exotic matter?

please address the questions i brought up about your alternative-gravity model and how Einstein has nothing to do with big bang cosmology or an old universe.

if you can do math please back up your assertions about the field equations with something tangible.

please explain your wild assertion that inconclusive results are able to falsify theories.

Absolutely not. This is a puzzle, and I am not going to tell you which pieces fit what.
And no doubt that exotic matter has everything to do with the prevailing theories, Einstein being a key theorist.

So tell me, do actually accept the notion that the speed of gravity is limited to the speed of light? I have read the papers and the absurdity beggars the imagination. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

[presidente]

Relativity indicates that the "time" on a mountaintop is slower than time at sea level....AND IT ACCUMULATES. Utter rubbish The problem? Atomic clocks. Do your homework on that and get back to me.

Why the snarky comment at the end? I was not even disagreeing with you.

What kind of homework have you done? Have you personally studied Einstein's quations? Do you read the academic journals on the physics topics you are addressing? I was planning on watching the youtube video you posted when I get some time at a PC.

I am just guessing but one would probably have to get to second or third year PhD student knowledge of physics to understand the math with the arguments and theory right? I suppose someone could teach himself with a lower degree of education like Einstein did.

I am just wondering if the homework you have done involves reading the academic papers and understanding the math or watching YouTube videos. Most adherants of secular-science-as-religion probably have a pop science book level of education on the subject.

As far as me doing my homework, I do not plan to gain the knowledge of a PhD physics student. If I read lots of academic papers it is going to be in y own ield. Regression-related stats like multivariate analysis, SEM, and factor analysis are challenging enough math (almost math) for me.

I am open to what you have to say. But you will be heard better if you lose the snark.

 

[presidente]

I id ot see the read the papers comment until I posted a message I slowly pecked in a phone while doing other things. I would like to know your math or physics background. Realistically reading lots of physics papers is not realistic for me. I suspect this is true of most people.

To make it official science fogma yoy need enough guys in white coats or suits with three letters after their names who the media approves of to agree with it. To get that you need papers acepted in scientific journals, preferrably top ones, news media reports inaccurately overstating and mistating findings as they do, and documentaries on science channels touting your new theory, until quasiscience fans in society, school teachers, and politicians parrot your theory.

 

[cv5]

Why the snarky comment at the end? I was not even disagreeing with you.

What kind of homework have you done? Have you personally studied Einstein's quations? Do you read the academic journals on the physics topics you are addressing? I was planning on watching the youtube video you posted when I get some time at a PC.

I am just guessing but one would probably have to get to second or third year PhD student knowledge of physics to understand the math with the arguments and theory right? I suppose someone could teach himself with a lower degree of education like Einstein did.

I am just wondering if the homework you have done involves reading the academic papers and understanding the math or watching YouTube videos. Most adherants of secular-science-as-religion probably have a pop science book level of education on the subject.

As far as me doing my homework, I do not plan to gain the knowledge of a PhD physics student. If I read lots of academic papers it is going to be in y own ield. Regression-related stats like multivariate analysis, SEM, and factor analysis are challenging enough math (almost math) for me.

I am open to what you have to say. But you will be heard better if you lose the snark.

Sorry. Posthuman is getting under my skin. He is on ignore. I would jump in and do some reading on the matter regardless of your level of education. Common sense by God's Grace is enough for anybody to look into this further. I use the results of my research for my ministry efforts.….ALL the time. Constantly. And what is disturbing is that there are confused Christians who balk at the Truth of Scripture because of being constantly bombarded by scientific fallacy. So in that respect it is both edifying on a personal level (it was for me) but MUCH more importantly…...WITNESSING.

 

[Grandpa]

Didn't Einstein say that Gravity is NOT what was holding planets in orbit but some other force, of which he was unaware but was sure would be discovered, was responsible?

F= Gm1m2/r2 (that's r squared but I don't know how to make a number squared on the keyboard...)

The forces of gravity fall off too quickly as distance increases for gravity to be the force that holds planets in orbit.

I don't know for sure that this is what Einstein stated but I thought it came from him.

 

[presidente]

Got to love someone ripping Einstein and at the same time misspelling 4 words, leaving out correct punctuation and butchering the English language.........HAHAHA LOVE IT

I do not know if Einstein was a good speller. If he was as sloppy as he was as a dresser and with his hair...

 

[Dino246]

I'm not going to get deep in this conversation, but I will just add that I have come across information supporting the theory that space is largely controlled by electromagnetic rather than gravitational forces.

I will also add that anyone who presents an unfamiliar idea does well to do so humbly, and to avoid insulting those whom he is trying to convince.

 

[cv5]

I'm not going to get deep in this conversation, but I will just add that I have come across information supporting the theory that space is largely controlled by electromagnetic rather than gravitational forces.

I will also add that anyone who presents an unfamiliar idea does well to do so humbly, and to avoid insulting those whom he is trying to convince.

Agreed. The evidence is at this point quite overwhelming. I only wish to broach the topic and provide launching points for personal study. There is probably an electromagnetic component to gravity as well.

 

[p_rehbein]

Einstein revealed himself to me, and he said you were completely bonkers..........Do I believe him or you?

Hmm

Think I'll go with him..............he ain't quite as big a wing nut as you are revealing yourself to be