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.
posthuman

posthuman

Senior Member
#101
Jul 31, 2013
36,684
13,139
113
#101
cv5 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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..
 
E

Embankment

Senior Member
#102
Feb 28, 2017
693
190
43
#102
Nehemiah6 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I second that. We need to be talking Christ!
 
p_rehbein

p_rehbein

Senior Member
#104
Sep 4, 2013
30,229
6,557
113
#104
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...
Einstein worship? Where? Oh, because we disagree with you, we MUST worship Einstein right? I see SELF worship.....namely cv5 worshiping self..........
 
p_rehbein

p_rehbein

Senior Member
#105
Sep 4, 2013
30,229
6,557
113
#105
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?

ummm.png sure about.png
 
P

presidente

Senior Member
#106
May 29, 2013
9,091
1,754
113
#106
cv5 said:
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.
Click to expand...
cv5 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
L

Lillywolf

Well-known member
#108
Aug 29, 2018
1,562
543
113
#108
One thing for certain, Albert was smarter than any of us on this forum. :giggle:
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
1543300770458.jpeg
https://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-relativity.html


Einstein's Special Relativity for Dummies
 
L

Lillywolf

Well-known member
#110
Aug 29, 2018
1,562
543
113
#110
cv5 said:
Works for me I just checked.
Click to expand...
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

cv5

Well-known member
#111
Nov 20, 2018
18,451
7,256
113
#111
posthuman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

posthuman

Senior Member
#112
Jul 31, 2013
36,684
13,139
113
#112
presidente said:
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.
Click to expand...
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

posthuman

Senior Member
#113
Jul 31, 2013
36,684
13,139
113
#113
cv5 said:
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.
Click to expand...
this does not explain to me why I don't get a correct result for g when I consider an electrically neutral mass.
 
cv5

cv5

Well-known member
#114
Nov 20, 2018
18,451
7,256
113
#114
posthuman said:
this does not explain to me why I don't get a correct result for g when I consider an electrically neutral mass.
Click to expand...
Well....time to throw those old obsolete textbooks into the dustbin, and find out where you went wrong isn't it?
 
cv5

cv5

Well-known member
#115
Nov 20, 2018
18,451
7,256
113
#115
posthuman said:
this does not explain to me why I don't get a correct result for g when I consider an electrically neutral mass.
Click to expand...
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

cv5

Well-known member
#116
Nov 20, 2018
18,451
7,256
113
#116

Alternatively...….
 
posthuman

posthuman

Senior Member
#117
Jul 31, 2013
36,684
13,139
113
#117
I can't watch videos at work.

use your own words, if you actually understand it, can you?
 
cv5

cv5

Well-known member
#118
Nov 20, 2018
18,451
7,256
113
#118
posthuman said:
I can't watch videos at work.

use your own words, if you actually understand it, can you?
Click to expand...
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

posthuman

Senior Member
#119
Jul 31, 2013
36,684
13,139
113
#119
if gravity is instantaneous why is electromagnetic force not?
 
L

LPT

Guest
#120
#120
cv5 said:
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.

Click to expand...
Yea that explains the gravity of a black hole were nothing pass through, what a stupid human he is Rambling of nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.