It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Einstein was a fraud. E= nothing

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 09:20 AM
Electro Magnetism folks. Nothing else matters.

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 09:46 AM
There are lots of Einstein haters out there, and I too am not sure really where it all comes from. The equation has been tested, sometimes those tests are not direct, but in all there are many things we observe as a consequence and only make sense if this relation between energy and matter is true and in the form it takes. This comes from mass conversion during fission and fusion processes which are a direct
dm=|Mass1 - Mass2|
E=dm c^2

Effect where the energy we observe does match up with fusion /fission rate in the respective experiments.

There is also the pair production of electrons and other particles which again are a direct energy to mass conversion.

Good example is shown in this bubble chamber photograph. (it has been false coloured to separate the electron and positron but the point is the same)

There you have a high energy gamma entering from the left, it interacts with an atomic electron causing it to fly off with momentum to the right of the frame, while also pair producing an electron positron pair which spiral in opposite directions due to the magnetic field. The gamma did not completely loose all its energy and continues, pair producing again in the same frame. This time however it looses comparatively more energy and the two particles move out in much wider spirals.

the energy can be calculated by understanding the density of the ionization and the track length.

Anyway, one thing i have heard so many times is blatant misunderstanding of the system of units, saying things like "C is the maximum speed, but C^2 is even faster, which means its wrong"

No no no no... because C^2 is not a speed. Last time i checked speed is not represented in units of m^2/s^2
edit on 1-9-2014 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 09:55 AM

originally posted by: ErosA433
There are lots of Einstein haters out there, and I too am not sure really where it all comes from.

The feeling of being smart without having to be smart. The Top Minds™ have yet again debunked those silly scientists who think they know everything!

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 10:08 AM

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: knightsofcydonia

Except Einstein is proven right . . .

As far as the simple equation concerning how to measure energy, okay. As far as the true nature of Reality, Einstein was never proven to be right, since there is no experiment or experimental prediction that can prove a theory as inherently finite as his Special Relativity Theory to be applicable to something as sweeping as the macro-system that Reality obviously is.

I had a very interesting exchange with a "Death Cafe" moderator a month and some ago, concerning the relative nature of Reality. His contention was that Reality is 100% "owned" by the observer, and my contention was that there is a specific and observer-immune Reality matrix that (while constantly developing with each "quantum of Now") is not at all affected (as a whole) by the observations - or lack-there-of - of any or many unique frames of reference.

I actually had my Kindle with me and debunked the basis of Einstein's Special Theory or Relativity (and with it, his General theory of Relativity, since that theory is based on the former and cannot survive without its fundamental tenets remaining intact) with only 4 diagrams that I had already tossed together with PowerPoint for an essay concerning the existence of a "fundamental real" I'd been working on.

Here's the account of how I debunked the Time Dilation assertion of Special Relativity with 4 "slides".

- mods, note that there is nothing for sale or linked to sale on that blog page or that entire suite of entries. The blog only exists to publicly share what I've learned as a result of my own research and education concerning communication between incarnate and discarnate human beings.

I actually have gotten the nagging impression that Einstein knew that his Relativity theories couldn't be used to describe the entire Universe (Reality, as it were) but that he'd allowed the scientific community of his day to go wild with all of it to simply see just how absurd the whole thing might get. That his "bending starlight" prediction was proven true was likely as much a shock to him as it was to anyone else, but there is at least one very responsible theoretical explanation for that "bended light" indication, and it deals with the same sort of heat radiation effect that causes mirage images in the desert (which are basically photon flights bending in the same manner over an extremely hot surface - like the sun in Einstein's own "curved spacetime" prediction)

I've begun to suspect that his Relativity theories began as ingenious satire over the dogged adherence to Bacon's "scientific empiricism" that ruled his day and still holds sway over "serious science" even today. Like an absurdist legal argument that slightly alters a premise within a pile of premises enough to force a conclusion that could never be true otherwise. His pair of premises being that (one) the observer's frame of reference is always to be considered achieved from a stationary position, and that (two) there is a factual (and not simply empirical) equivalence between gravity and acceleration. Both assertions based solely on the empirical observation of the conscious observer and based on nothing else whatsoever, and then inductively expanded to impose the ramifications of these profound assertions to reconfigure Reality as a whole from each and every competing frame of reference that exists (as if that's something that could ever happen or be allowed to happen if Reality itself were to be survivable for more than an instant).

Einstein's Relativity theories seem to almost mock the basis of the empirically dominant "scientific method" that ruled his world, and he even slips in the 19th century "aether pressure gravity theory" while renaming it "curved spacetime" as almost an attempt to push the whole thing a bit too far, to see if he can test its limits. And he brilliantly does so by presenting all of it in the most convoluted manner, with thought experiments (which have the same effect as twisting premise analogies into confusing narratives that lead the listener away from were they should be focused and toward where the story teller wants them to be focused). Basically, the ball and cups game but with easy to visualize vignettes involving men on trains and men in elevators and large heavy spheres rolling around on tightly drawn sheets.

Einstein was definitely a genius, but perhaps not a scientific genius. Perhaps he was actually trying to teach his colleagues about something much more important than the relative nature of physical reality? Perhaps he was trying to teach those brilliant minds to use critical thinking, but they never figured it out, so he laughed and let the whole world revere him as a scientific genius if that's what it wanted to do. Hell, why not? If his colleagues were going to refuse to see through his gentle absurdist rebuke, then why not let them and be hailed as a great scientific hero by the rest of the world?

That his gravity-time dilation prediction works is just the impossible-to-correct-for impact of changes in relative gravity well placement on the hyper-sensitive system fluctuations of a caesium 133 oscillator, and not much more than that, is yet another "happy surprise" for Einstein and his Relativity theories. The guy's entire reality reconstruction is based on a relative handful of tenuous experimental observations, while flying directly in the face of layers and layers of reliable and structural physical consistency that simply could never exist if what he asserts is true. It's actually not all that complicated, but our modern world declared him to be this transformational genius without ever even bothering to really look at (or try to understand) what his theories were actually based on.

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 11:19 AM
I will not let you talk about my friend Albert Einstein like that.

Not only were all of his theories correct, he was a super human. It would take a lifetime of study and focus for you to reach his level of genius and intellect.

Good day, sir...I said "Good day!"

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 05:36 PM
Too bad Einstein could not patent his equation. His family would make Billions by now, for doing nothing.
Even though the theory of relativity is a really big discovery, the more we discover, the more theories we find. Some theories and practices will not apply to each other. Like these engines that break laws and Power generators that don't make sense in physics but that are working.

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 05:40 PM
Yeah its not like nuclear bombs dont work or anything..... oh wait.

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 05:48 PM
a reply to: knightsofcydonia
I also read he had a pretty smart ol' lady in his first wife and used a lot of her science prowess as his own. Just sayin'

Given that, he was still a very intelligent scientist and he was correct in a lot of his theories including the ones you disagree with. How else would the theories lead to all that has been done from his starting points?

edit on 1-9-2014 by Turkenstein because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 05:55 PM

originally posted by: Turkenstein
a reply to: knightsofcydonia
I also read he had a pretty smart ol' lady in his first wife and used a lot of her science prowess as his own. Just sayin'

Yes, his first wife was smart, but she was no Albert Einstein. How did her career go after they separated? Remember that people TALKED with Einstein.

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 07:18 PM
a reply to: knightsofcydonia

The theory of relativity is not a FRAUD!!! It is a different thing totally in my understanding why did you say it is a fraud? knightsofcydonia i want to know, did you think of something described in Einsteins theory that is not true i watched the video in your OP i thought it was great but in no way does it replace what Einsteins theory relativity was about but it does come off his his statement that all things in the universe are compared through E=Mc2 which to me doesn't seem to be wrong when you look at it. This video is more of a discovery and no theory in it unless you know something that you want to compare it too from both sources but The theory of relativity is not a Fraud thank you.

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 10:12 PM
The future of mankind Challenge,  Theory--- dark or missing matter is "transitional matter,"it is neither what it was ,or yet ,what it is to become,in transition it still has mass and is still matter.It must do this in time ,finite as it may be nothing can move faster than the speed of light.Without going into detail this will fill the spaces in the periodic table.Everything is nothing without time,all would cease to exist in transition if this is not true.We can only do so much with current known elements, this is the key to the future we all dream of.

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 10:29 PM
a reply to: ErosA433

No no no no... because C^2 is not a speed. Last time i checked speed is not represented in units of m^2/s^2

yeah, I caught that too. For those that read the part about the equation contradicting itself--here is an example.

1 Joule = kg * m^2/s^2
I suppose the confusion is with acceleration = m/s^2
Force and energy are not expressed in the same units.
the equation E = mc^2 looks a lot like F=MA or force = mass X acceleration

m^2/s^2 may be construed by some as (1 square meter/per second)/per second
of change in velocity. If this were true, we would move at twice the speed of light in the first second!

However, in e = mc^2 a mass is multiplied by a very large constant in SU units appropriate for energy, ie m^2/s^2

So, if 1kg of matter could be completely consumed.
E= mc^2

=1kg x (3x10^8ms^-1)^2
=1kg x (3x10^8ms^-1)x (3x10^8ms^-1)
=1kg x (9 x 10^16)kg m^2s^-2
=9X10^16 Joules
or 90,000,000,000,000,000 joules

A LOT of energy in a small mass! Enough to power a 100W light bulb for 28,519,279 years


posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 11:10 PM
a reply to: NorEaster

Your "debunking" is flawed. The observer on the train doesn't change frames of reference depending on what direction they face. It's just that in their frame of reference, the lightning strikes are not simultaneous. That's the whole point... What appears simultaneous in one frame of reference isn't necessarily simultaneous in another frame of reference.

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 11:22 PM
99.9% of debunkers for folks like Einstein are just regurgitating what they have seen on YouTube, read on blogs, etc. They have no actual idea if his ideas were correct or not. It's obvious he was brilliant, and many of his ideas worked in practice, not just in theory. I doubt all his theories were 100% spot-on.. but I do know he was smarter than probably 100% of the folks that post here.

This site = conjuncture and regurgitation from other sources.

posted on Sep, 1 2014 @ 11:26 PM
a reply to: NorEaster

I looked at your diagrams ... it shows you really don't understand understand how it works. Allow me to educate you.

edit on 1-9-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 01:52 AM

Albert Einstein
– was he a thief, a liar and a plagiarist?

ALBERT EINSTEIN is held up as "a rare genius," who drastically changed the field of theoretical physics. However, using the technique known as 'The Often-Repeated Lie=Truth,' he has been made an idol to young people, and his very name has become synonymous with genius.

THE TRUTH, HOWEVER, IS VERY DIFFERENT. Einstein was an inept and moronic person, who could not even tie his own shoelaces; he contributed NOTHING ORIGINAL to the field of quantum mechanics, nor any other science. On the contrary—he stole the ideas of others, and the Zionist-controlled media made him a 'hero.'

When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein, we find that his only 'brilliance' was in his ability to PLAGIARIZE and STEAL OTHER PEOPLE'S IDEAS, PASSING THEM OFF AS HIS OWN. Einstein's education, or lack thereof, is an important part of this story.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein's early education that he "showed little scholastic ability." It also says that at the age of 15, "with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he left school with no diploma." Einstein himself wrote in a school paper of his "lack of imagination and practical ability." In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich.
Source and More

edit on 2-9-2014 by knightsofcydonia because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-9-2014 by knightsofcydonia because: (no reason given)

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others
edit on 2/9/2014 by Gemwolf because: Talking about Plagiarism... Ex tags, source and note added

posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 02:26 AM
a reply to: knightsofcydonia

Why make another thread containing that exact post?.

posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 02:57 AM
a reply to: boymonkey74

Because their whole post is a thinly veiled hate thread. Why not increase the hate with more threads.

posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 04:30 AM
By the way, the link you posted in the other thread was lying, his marks were not 1-6, (1 being the highest), 1 was indeed the lowest.

Einstein's matriculation certificate at the age of 17, showing his final grades from the Argovian cantonal school (aargauische Kantonsschule, on a scale of 1–6, with 6 being the best mark)

Einstein actually had really good grades.

It is kind of ironic though, that you say Einstein is a fraud because "he had no formal education and couldn't get anywhere in the system" but then go on to credit some nobody on YouTube who plays with magnets...

posted on Sep, 2 2014 @ 04:31 AM
a reply to: knightsofcydonia

was he a thief, a liar and a plagiarist?

Actual proof you're the second in this thread, wittingly or unwittingly.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in