Einstein was a fraud. E= nothing

a reply to: boncho

Which is why only 3 videos ever got put up. He made 6. Probably too ashamed.

If you have a problem with Einstein's work by the way, the proper way to go about it is like this:

Testing Einstein's E=mc2 in outer space

(Phys.org)—University of Arizona physicist Andrei Lebed has stirred the physics community with an intriguing idea yet to be tested experimentally: The world's most iconic equation, Albert Einstein's E=mc2, may be correct or not depending on where you are in space.

This equivalence principle between the inertial and gravitational masses, introduced in classical physics by Galileo Galilei and in modern physics by Albert Einstein, has been confirmed with a very high level of accuracy. "But my calculations show that beyond a certain probability, there is a very small but real chance the equation breaks down for a gravitational mass," Lebed said.

In the meantime, Lebed has invited his peers to evaluate his calculations and suggested an experiment to test his conclusions, which he published in the world's largest collection of preprints at Cornell University Library (see More Info).


Read more at: phys.org...

Now, even if Lebed is right, it does not "prove Einstein was wrong" or rewrite physics as we know it. Some might get a little sensational and say as much but it's more because each find is truly exciting and does change things in the future. But nothing wipes out past scientific discovery, because it is built on its past, added to, changed ever so slightly to evolve.

Nothing truly rewrites what we know but expands on it.

But thanks for the double donut. Would be very interesting if not presented the way it was...

a reply to: knightsofcydonia
Your science is using monopoles (the magnetic "bowls" either negative or positive)
This has not been verified yet, too.

I’m not sure how exactly they were able to construct these magnets; but they are either Negatively polarized or positively polarized. When placing a negative and positive bowl near near each other in the chamber, a very peculiar effect happens with the plasma. Most of the plasma in the chamber collects in the space between the bowls. It rotates at a high rate of speed and streamers of plasma are ejected from the holes in the bottom of the bowl shaped magnets.

So you are quoting someone who can´t differ between electric charges and the poles of magnets? By the way, this sound just like what they are trying with ITER. Containing a plasma in an electromagnetic field. Also, this is how they contain dark matter, the matter you dismissed with your very first sentence.

a reply to: boncho

Oh sure, you beat Einstein. You're way smarter than him and anyone who credits his work because you found a YouTube video that claims to disprove everything he did, and gee whiz the rest of us are all idiots because you found a snake oil salesman on YouTube. Wow...

i do not find myself agreeing with you often but you certainly hit the nail on the head

originally posted by: knightsofcydonia
I figured you would say that... how was his equation proven right? a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I figured you would say that, too. Can you please elaborate on your point? Or at least give me a 54 minute explanation.

originally posted by: [post=18357109]OccamsRazor04[/pos

Even the weird wacky things Einstein thought would be proven wrong ... have been proven right, such as spooky action at a distance.

Now, explain exactly how spooky action at a distance works.

He couldn't.

Are we there yet?

In physics, action at a distance is the concept that an object can be moved, changed, or otherwise affected without being physically touched by another object. That is, it is the nonlocal interaction of objects that are separated in space.

This term was used most often in the context of early theories of gravity and electromagnetism to describe how an object responds to the influence of distant objects. More generally "action at a distance" describes the failure of early atomistic and mechanistic theories which sought to reduce all physical interaction to collision. The exploration and resolution of this problematic phenomenon led to significant developments in physics, from the concept of a field, to descriptions of quantum entanglement and the mediator particles of the Standard Model

Thank you all for the intelligent response to the OP. I feel extremely vilified by your display of opposition. Now if only I could start to break down all of your lackluster rebuttals..
...Please I will not cater to a response until the evidence has been taken into consideration..

originally posted by: rockintitz

originally posted by: knightsofcydonia
I figured you would say that... how was his equation proven right? a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I figured you would say that, too. Can you please elaborate on your point? Or at least give me a 54 minute explanation.

What about a 51 minute explanation, or is that mean it's incorrect?

a reply to: knightsofcydonia

It simply does not work that way and nobody will watch a hour long YT video without a good breakdown. You could not provide such, instead you quoted someone who admits that he has no clue. So it was doomed from the first minute. And it´s not evidence you´re talking about. If so, show us the evidence in a way we start to dig into it.

I suggest you take your time in researching, learning and understanding basic physic and electric engineering and then catch some real world experiences with it. Then come back with evidence if you found one, or even come back to dismiss your presented idea. That would be the honest and right way. Not posting two sentences in the op, attaching a YT video and later on quote some guy who admits he has no clue what he´s talking about.

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: [post=18357109]OccamsRazor04[/pos

Even the weird wacky things Einstein thought would be proven wrong ... have been proven right, such as spooky action at a distance.

Now, explain exactly how spooky action at a distance works.

He couldn't.

Are we there yet?

In physics, action at a distance is the concept that an object can be moved, changed, or otherwise affected without being physically touched by another object. That is, it is the nonlocal interaction of objects that are separated in space.

This term was used most often in the context of early theories of gravity and electromagnetism to describe how an object responds to the influence of distant objects. More generally "action at a distance" describes the failure of early atomistic and mechanistic theories which sought to reduce all physical interaction to collision. The exploration and resolution of this problematic phenomenon led to significant developments in physics, from the concept of a field, to descriptions of quantum entanglement and the mediator particles of the Standard Model

You don't find it incredible that he theorized things 90 years ago that we are only able to start proving now? Why does it matter if he was able to describe every single detail, the fact he was able to think of something like that at all is simply amazing.

a reply to: knightsofcydonia

This does not help you either.
You are expecting us to watch a hour long video.
You provided a laughable breakdown, that we first had to ask for.
Your insistence, that you are right shows your ignorance and now you begin to attack people in your own thread.
If you believe in next life, you should believe in karma (I do).
Most of us would skim through the video if you had a valid explanation.

edit: and your resistance in trying to comprehend what you want us to swallow, makes you look like a blind believer. With this attitude, you will not get much hear in future. And even if the video holds truth, you did the exact opposite of what you tried to achieve.
People will remember this thread and connect the video to it and dismiss instantly, because of your bad service in providing usable context.
If anything, you made more damage then good.

originally posted by: boncho

originally posted by: rockintitz

originally posted by: knightsofcydonia
I figured you would say that... how was his equation proven right? a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I figured you would say that, too. Can you please elaborate on your point? Or at least give me a 54 minute explanation.

What about a 51 minute explanation, or is that mean it's incorrect?

Yes. Is that means it's incorrect.

I is been sarcasm. CMON

a reply to: knightsofcydonia

BTW, who are you to expect us to trust in you, while behaving this way? If a reputated member had posted this, some may blindly watch the video without bitching. Because this hypotetical OP had obtained trust, what you do is the exact opposite.
Count to 3 and breath slowly, then think about my post above. Maybe you will see it then. Take some distance. Everybody learns constantly on their way of life but you have to want it, too.

and look up the definition of "evidence".

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
You don't find it incredible that he theorized things 90 years ago that we are only able to start proving now? Why does it matter if he was able to describe every single detail, the fact he was able to think of something like that at all is simply amazing.

I think Einstein was an amazing person when one considers the period in which he worked. That's not neither here nor there.

Predicting something then theorizing why it happens the way it does is a good start which has pushed us closer to the end zone and goal post. However, even Einstein as some modern great minds have expressed wasn't exactly 100% accurate. I don't agree with the OPs video's logic. But, even though Einstein took us in a whole new direction which has advanced our understanding still needs to be put into context and expanded upon while acknowledging his theory's shortcomings.

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
You don't find it incredible that he theorized things 90 years ago that we are only able to start proving now? Why does it matter if he was able to describe every single detail, the fact he was able to think of something like that at all is simply amazing.

I think Einstein was an amazing person when one considers the period in which he worked. That's not neither here nor there.

Predicting something then theorizing why it happens the way it does is a good start which has pushed us closer to the end zone and goal post. However, even Einstein as some modern great minds have expressed wasn't exactly 100% accurate. I don't agree with the OPs video's logic. But, even though Einstein took us in a whole new direction which has advanced our understanding still needs to be put into context and expanded upon while acknowledging his theory's shortcomings.

I agree. Much like every other great scientist made their discoveries because someone great came before them, others will take what Einstein did and refine them and build on them. I would never claim Einstein had all the answers, but he laid the groundwork, and our modern geniuses are able to achieve what they do, in part, because of his work.

Show me a theory that says Einstein was close, but this is where we can improve the theory .. I will be interested.

Show me a theory where Einstein is all wrong, had nothing right, and it's something completely different, I am not so interested unless you have proof of such an absolute nature it can't be disputed.

How was he a fraud? Even if eventually proven wrong, science is really just best guess. Awful thread by the arrogant mind.

About halfway through the first video he starts talking about the glory of god.

The vid shows how to make a dbl bowl shaped field emitter. Basically two magnetic bowls with large amounts of electricity running through them, spaced at various lengths inside a vacuum tube. This is nothing more than a typical plasma generator. Pretty common stuff. Then it starts comparing this to the X nebula for some reason. Then it compares it to several different dome shaped buildings as if saint peter's basilica is actually half of a bowl shaped field emitter,,, Hahahahaha. Seriously.

This is just some christian science deniers who are pointing out something they don't understand and claiming that it debunked all of established science. This isn't even a good effort.


a reply to: knightsofcydonia

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: knightsofcydonia
Your science is using monopoles (the magnetic "bowls" either negative or positive)
This has not been verified yet, too.

I’m not sure how exactly they were able to construct these magnets; but they are either Negatively polarized or positively polarized. When placing a negative and positive bowl near near each other in the chamber, a very peculiar effect happens with the plasma. Most of the plasma in the chamber collects in the space between the bowls. It rotates at a high rate of speed and streamers of plasma are ejected from the holes in the bottom of the bowl shaped magnets.

So you are quoting someone who can´t differ between electric charges and the poles of magnets? By the way, this sound just like what they are trying with ITER. Containing a plasma in an electromagnetic field. Also, this is how they contain dark matter, the matter you dismissed with your very first sentence.

Uhmm..... Dark matter has never been contained. It has never even been observed. By the theory you could not use matter to contain it.

a reply to: verschickter

Greetings- "Point of Order" If the OP in fact believes in an 'after Life' then getting "caught up" (attachment) with any'thing' is counter-productive, especially as it relates to One of, if not the greatest scientific minds those currently "in body" may be aware of, to attack this person's "Theories" is obtuse in it's origins. In other words "It really isn't Cricket"..

I'm certain before You attacked Al, You did some 'due diligence' prior to posting? Your work here at ATS™ doesn't reflect that You are "one of those guys" that rush into posting things that can be poked and prodded? Even that 'rush to judge' goes against the whole "setting things up for the next one" Yes, We don't have to be like The Pharaoh and stockpile our "treasures" (You can Your 'treasure' with You...)

Do You have an inkling on why one of the videos pits Nick vs. Al? I'd opine a couple who've responded to this thread can link the connection betwixt Tesla and Einstein..

So, sew, it appears that 'many' don't have the "Time" (54 min.) or the "Space" (bandwidth) to watch the video.. SEE? I just proved the whole "Time/Space continuum"

But even the worst attorney or worst reporter or worst substitute teacher, would provide some "meat" instead of just popping in a video and having us 'students' try and decipher the message, You'd be better off just taking a nap and calling it a "mind experiment" Oh, wait We are here to bury Alfred Epstein, not praise Him...

namaste