Einstein Was Wrong !

[posthuman]

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.

how about a real number? this one is like your "100%" isn't it?

looked it up, 39 times weaker than EM between an electron and proton.

but whats the magnetic force between the earth and moon? the gravitational one is 2e20 newtons..

 

[Embankment]

You are losing your focus.

Your goal should not be to prove Einstein is wrong, but to proclaim that CHRIST IS THE ANSWER to every problem.

BTW, Einstein has already established his place in science and history. No need to tilt at windmills.

I second that. We need to be talking Christ!

 

[posthuman]

View attachment 191071

my body is overall electrically neutral. when I plug 0 in for my charge density I get 0 for g.

that's a problem, even though posting math formulae is pretty.

 

[p_rehbein]

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.

Einstein worship? Where? Oh, because we disagree with you, we MUST worship Einstein right? I see SELF worship.....namely cv5 worshiping self..........

 

[p_rehbein]

Now, the guy did have a really, really bad hair cut...........I'll give you that..........but, you thinking you have a greater intellect than him?

 

[presidente]

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.

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.

Where is there a violation of the scientific method if a scientist's theory is informed by faith. I am used to non Bayesian statistics, where you can violate the method with dayamining to look for patterns-which coukd be random- beforehand. Having unk theories about degrees of homophobia would not be violating the method if you handled the numbers right.

 

[Lillywolf]

https://www.libertariannews.org/2011/07/08/einstein-was-wrong-2/

It may be my browser security settings but that link doesn't open.

 

[Lillywolf]

One thing for certain, Albert was smarter than any of us on this forum.
Now it is libertarians taking a shot back in 2011. At one time the accusation against AE's ToGR was that it was a Nazi conspiracy.


Albert Einstein, in his theory of special relativity, determined that the laws of physics are the same for all non-accelerating observers, and he showed that the speed of light within a vacuum is the same no matter the speed at which an observer travels.Nov 7, 2017
Einstein's Theory of General Relativity: A Simplified Explanation

https://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html


Einstein's Special Relativity for Dummies

 

[cv5]

It may be my browser security settings but that link doesn't open.

Works for me I just checked.

 

[Lillywolf]

Works for me I just checked.

Thank you. I just tried to open a You Tube video and my anti-virus blocked the link. Malware warning and all that. And I was just on YT last night. Weird.
Thanks again.

 

[cv5]

my body is overall electrically neutral. when I plug 0 in for my charge density I get 0 for g.

that's a problem, even though posting math formulae is pretty.

Gravitoelectromagnetism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_D._Jefimenko

Jefimenko's expansion, or generalization, is based on the existence of the second gravitational force field, the "cogravitational, or Heaviside's field". This might also be called a gravimagnetic field. It represents a physical approach profoundly different from the time-space geometry approach of the Einstein general theory of relativity. Oliver Heaviside first predicted this field in the article A Gravitational and Electromagnetic Analogy (1893).

As usual Heavyside is right. Again.

 

[posthuman]

Where is there a violation of the scientific method if a scientist's theory is informed by faith. I am used to non Bayesian statistics, where you can violate the method with dayamining to look for patterns-which coukd be random- beforehand. Having unk theories about degrees of homophobia would not be violating the method if you handled the numbers right.

how are you supposed to form a testable hypothesis if you don't presuppose a possible explanation lol

having an idea of what you are looking for or expecting is not in and of itself bias.

 

[posthuman]

Gravitoelectromagnetism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_D._Jefimenko

Jefimenko's expansion, or generalization, is based on the existence of the second gravitational force field, the "cogravitational, or Heaviside's field". This might also be called a gravimagnetic field. It represents a physical approach profoundly different from the time-space geometry approach of the Einstein general theory of relativity. Oliver Heaviside first predicted this field in the article A Gravitational and Electromagnetic Analogy (1893).

As usual Heavyside is right. Again.

this does not explain to me why I don't get a correct result for g when I consider an electrically neutral mass.

 

[cv5]

this does not explain to me why I don't get a correct result for g when I consider an electrically neutral mass.

Well....time to throw those old obsolete textbooks into the dustbin, and find out where you went wrong isn't it?

 

[cv5]

this does not explain to me why I don't get a correct result for g when I consider an electrically neutral mass.

Here is a very well known alternative. Known for many many decades. The problem is that not many people are paying attention or so it would seem.

 

[cv5]

Alternatively...….

 

[posthuman]

I can't watch videos at work.

use your own words, if you actually understand it, can you?

 

[cv5]

I can't watch videos at work.

use your own words, if you actually understand it, can you?

Oh I sure do. And have for quite some time. But don't let my tedium ruin you day. Please review the contents yourself (gather your own manna in other words). These theories are nothing new, quite the contrary.

And of course, if you feel the desire to do so, please provide something useful to the board. I understand that your continual criticisms and personal challenges might be useful to some they are utterly useless to me. I already know what I know.

Einstein was/is wrong. Dead wrong.

 

[posthuman]

if gravity is instantaneous why is electromagnetic force not?

 

[LPT]

Here is a very well known alternative. Known for many many decades. The problem is that not many people are paying attention or so it would seem.

Yea that explains the gravity of a black hole were nothing pass through, what a stupid human he is Rambling of nothing.