It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Einstein Proven Wrong, Yet Again

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

negative sir, you have it bacwards




posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Nochzwei

One of my best friends is a Physicist at NIST.

I sent him the article and am waiting for his response. I will chime in with it when it arrives.
Ok mate, thanks



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Does this mean, since I stand all day on my job, that my head is older or younger than my feet?

It does seem as though this whole thing is being based upon the differences in distance from the earth's surface.

Should I stand on my head when not at work, to let things even out?



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: verschickter
a reply to: Nochzwei
Why do you get the idea this article proofs einstein wrong?
It clearly supports his theory.

Lol you are kidding , right.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Lol you have gone all topsy turrvy



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Nochzwei

A post that contradicts itself?

How so?


It's pointless me explaining it to you because you'll just make some daft comment about not knowing something or other.
Oh really, what a pity. nvm



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

No. You have it backwards.

I just spoke to my buddy at NIST, who also happens to know the author/experimenter in this article.

The article profoundly confirms two of Einstein's predictions about the theory of Relativity.

1. That time passes faster with less gravity-height.

2. That time passes slower for an observer moving at a velocity.

I'm not sure why you think that you and only you have discovered a flaw in Einstein's work. And I'm perplexed as to how you even came to that conclusion from reading the article.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
Lol you have gone all topsy turrvy


Says the guy who believes this:


originally posted by: Nochzwei


I must have missed your brilliant math equations which disprove General Relativity when I programmed my GPS yesterday.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: Nochzwei

Does this mean, since I stand all day on my job, that my head is older or younger than my feet?

It does seem as though this whole thing is being based upon the differences in distance from the earth's surface.

Should I stand on my head when not at work, to let things even out?



if you want to get that 90 billionths of one second back in a lifetime, then yes..
But I would just guard against neurotoxins instead prolonging life by more than a second lol..

but thanks for the laugh.

oohh a new service in the future..

Say you fall in love with someone who is 10 years younger and you want a more even age..

You go off orbiting some dense star or blackhole for a year and come back..

of course when you come back she has moved on.. Damn..

Maybe something else though..

hmm

AHH you have a disease that breaks your immortality. No one knows how or why so then you orbit the black hole until they have a cure..


edit on 6-9-2016 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

I explaIined it quite clearly.

I'm baffled this is even a question.


But YOU are freaking awesome for doing that. I'd give you applause if I could.

Thanks.





posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

So you're saying that Einstein wasn't proven wrong by a random guy on the Internet who thinks a heater is a time machine?

I never saw that coming.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I will move on then...
edit on 6-9-2016 by Peeple because: Why bother



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
I did not see in the article if they tried the other clock elevated as well and go the same exact differential.
I mean two clocks, raise one check the difference, lower them to same level, verify both are accurately presenting no difference and then elevate the other and note that the same difference is observed.

Do you know if that was done?



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Peeple

It's almost hard to keep a straight face..
Well, no one can see me..

Just be polite man.. You got this..

wheeww.

I respectfully disagree with the OP and the seemingly backwards assertions on display in this lovely thread we have come together in. I would like to say ..

Have a good day everyone!

We're all relatives relatively speaking, so I hope we can continue to relate to each other long on into the future. Far enough into the future to build Einsteins secret "Relation-Ship" It uses relativity and it's a ship.. I've always wondered why space was water and not air.. Ships.. We can sail together, otherwise we'll be on different time zones and no one will know what's what anymore.

anyway..


edit on 6-9-2016 by Reverbs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ColdWisdom

Looks like you friend and the experimenter is a loyal terrier of einstein. in my op i have shown that their interpretaions/ conclusions are wrong.
i dont have it backwards. sorry



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Well my friend does have a PhD in Physics (he got it at age 28 by the way) and he does know the person who conducted the experiment.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Nochzwei

Actually, you didn't show it wrong. You used your opinion to explain why you think it's wrong. And in doing so, you've got yourself proven wrong.

Also, if GR was wrong, we would have so many things that didn't work, it would be obvious it was wrong.



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: evc1shop
I did not see in the article if they tried the other clock elevated as well and go the same exact differential.
I mean two clocks, raise one check the difference, lower them to same level, verify both are accurately presenting no difference and then elevate the other and note that the same difference is observed.

Do you know if that was done?
I dont think that was done



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: Nochzwei

Well my friend does have a PhD in Physics (he got it at age 28 by the way) and he does know the person who conducted the experiment.
Thats all well and good but their conclusions are wrong



posted on Sep, 6 2016 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: Nochzwei

Actually, you didn't show it wrong. You used your opinion to explain why you think it's wrong. And in doing so, you've got yourself proven wrong.
How so?



Also, if GR was wrong, we would have so many things that didn't work, it would be obvious it was wrong.
What things mate?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join