Einstein Was Wrong !

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Nehemiah6 said:
It would be more reasonable to believe that both gravity and electromagnetic forces are at work, and also accept the wave-particle concept. Energy and matter are inter-convertible, and both behave as particles and waves. And then we must apply Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
Click to expand...
Electromagnetism dominates. Basically driving everything. Gravity is probably a residual effect but is an emergent phenomenon and fundamentally derived from the Electromagnetic force.
BTW...how do you un-ignore someone? I cannot see that menu anywhere.
 
Nehemiah6 said:
It would be more reasonable to believe that both gravity and electromagnetic forces are at work, and also accept the wave-particle concept. Energy and matter are inter-convertible, and both behave as particles and waves. And then we must apply Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
Click to expand...
Found the un-ignore thx.
 
Grandpa said:
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.
Click to expand...

that's the Newtonian equation for the force of gravity. Einstein's equations reduce to that. so he's not saying it's wrong at all. they describe motion under the influence of gravity as a topological phenomenon - seeing mass as affecting a 'field' made of space and time, curving it. so regular Newtonian physics is completely the same it's just not taking place in a flat Euclidean space.
he's saying that instead of thinking of a planet in orbit as a ball on a string, with the string being the force of gravity, think of it as a ball traveling in a straight line like anything with inertia does. the difference is that because the ball is 'near' the sun, and the sun is really really massive by comparison, to the planet, a 'straight line' in space and time near the sun is a curve exactly like the ones Kepler described.
as long as dr/dt isn't close to the speed of light, Einstein's math is the same as Newton's
 
cv5 said:
Found the un-ignore thx.
Click to expand...

whether gravity acts instantaneously or not depends on the elasticity of space-time if gravity is understood as a topological phenomenon. the soundness of the description of motion that is relativity doesn't depend on gravity having a carrier particle any more than the existence of Jesus Christ depends on someone's perception or non-perception of Him :)
 
posthuman said:
in certain situations EM can be a stronger force than gravity ((the reverse is also true of course)) and particles with very little mass can have a lot of charge. just because EM forces play a large role in the kinetics and statics of the universe however doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist or that it's just a magnetic phenomena being misunderstood.
Click to expand...
posthuman said:
in certain situations EM can be a stronger force than gravity ((the reverse is also true of course)) and particles with very little mass can have a lot of charge. just because EM forces play a large role in the kinetics and statics of the universe however doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist or that it's just a magnetic phenomena being misunderstood.
Click to expand...


10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger. Might have added or missed a zero or two, matters little under the circumstances.
 
cv5 said:
I see Einstein worship...all the time. Why do you think the MSM props him up? They need a front man for what they are selling. And what they are selling is not Christ.

Einsten is simply a launching pad for the BB, pantheism, you name it.

But beyond that....Einstein is wrong. Dead wrong. Plenty more where he came from.
Click to expand...
Don't you appreciate what a rare genius Einstein was? It's not just anybody that can steal/plagerize other's work, flunk math exams and still pass himself off as brilliant physicist. Of course we should give credit where credit is due, he had help. His fame was launched by media, and cramed down our throats as part of the big deception being constructed, which you've alluded to.

If anybody would research any single aspect of the man, realize it is possible that the god of this world is leading us down a path of lies....? But nah, we're much too content with our cognitive dissonance to actually do our own research, too full of pride to think we've been deceived. (especially if we have written books or have logged many hours up on a pulpit).
 

Please ignore some of the language the narrator is using. We are grown ups. I hope.
 
posthuman said:
because it's bedtime :)

maybe tomorrow
Click to expand...

Okay. I would like to see your feedback. The main objection in that portion is conceptual, using equations assuming a universe with no mass. Though it also critiques using linear equations for non-linear phenomenon, but I suspect that happens way too much in the social sciences, too.
 
Karraster said:
Don't you appreciate what a rare genius Einstein was? It's not just anybody that can steal/plagerize other's work, flunk math exams and still pass himself off as brilliant physicist. Of course we should give credit where credit is due, he had help. His fame was launched by media, and cramed down our throats as part of the big deception being constructed, which you've alluded to.
Click to expand...

Was the nuclear bomb a fraud, too?
 
presidente said:
Okay. I would like to see your feedback. The main objection in that portion is conceptual, using equations assuming a universe with no mass. Though it also critiques using linear equations for non-linear phenomenon, but I suspect that happens way too much in the social sciences, too.
Click to expand...
More of the same from Crothers. Worth an audition. It could take much time to verify Crothers claims, but I always want to hear the countervailing thesis and the detractors.

 
cv5 said:

Please ignore some of the language the narrator is using. We are grown ups. I hope.
Click to expand...

This is a lot of insults and talking about how a book is full of math the guy cannot completely understand. He doesn't really argue in detail for his case.
 
presidente said:
This is a lot of insults and talking about how a book is full of math the guy cannot completely understand. He doesn't really argue in detail for his case.
Click to expand...
Lol. Well Sir, as I always say, this is only a launching point for your OWN continuing field of study. Think of it as another piece of the jigsaw puzzle. Mine is looking quite good I might add.....coming together nicely.
 
cv5,

How many people have you won to Christ with apologetics that involved showing videos like this or explaining the same thing in these videos?

I'm listening to one, and what I am thinking is that having students studying this might prepare them for evangelism by convincing them of the reality of Hell.
 
presidente said:
Was the nuclear bomb a fraud, too?
Click to expand...
Nuclear chemistry is quite elementary. Not much more difficult than any other chemistry. Its not much more difficult than making a good soufflé. Sort of. Other than the horrific toxicity. And volatility.
 
presidente said:
cv5,

How many people have you won to Christ with apologetics that involved showing videos like this or explaining the same thing in these videos?

I'm listening to one, and what I am thinking is that having students studying this might prepare them for evangelism by convincing them of the reality of Hell.
Click to expand...
I am in the engineering biz, and I preach along those lines.....all the time. Day in day out as often as I can. And yes, I tell people face to face that they are going to hell by default and the only way to avoid this inevitable fate is receiving the Gracious Gift of Jesus Christ our Lord by simple faith. It is a hard sell let me tell you.
 
cv5
https://www.youtube.com/watchtime_continue=307&v=jINHHXaPrWA

In this video

Stephen J. Crothers on Non-existence of Black Holes & The Failure of General Relativity.

The speaker has a problem with the Jesuit who put forth a model of the big bang because he wanted to reconcile one of Aquinas' theories with science. He thought that violated the scientific method? How was that supposed to violate the scientific method exactly? I don't follow that.
 
presidente said:
cv5
https://www.youtube.com/watchtime_continue=307&v=jINHHXaPrWA

In this video

Stephen J. Crothers on Non-existence of Black Holes & The Failure of General Relativity.

The speaker has a problem with the Jesuit who put forth a model of the big bang because he wanted to reconcile one of Aquinas' theories with science. He thought that violated the scientific method? How was that supposed to violate the scientific method exactly? I don't follow that.
Click to expand...
Don't worry about it. Natural philosophers have been violating the scientific method for a long long time, and it may actually be worse now than its ever been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back