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: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: Nochzwei

There is no such thing as a "bunk" question.

You've an opportunity here to educate, because apparently you're seeing something no one else is...

That is one hell of an opportunity. Much like Einstein did with his theories...

So.

Ball. Your court. Have at it.
IVE ADDRESSED ALL THE ISSUES, STICK TO THE EXPT IN THE OP.




posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 05:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greggers
Question for the OP: Can you at least identify which of Einsteins field equations you would use to prove that GR doesn't match this particular observed reality?
Like ive said i dont dwell on the bunk field equations.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 05:27 AM
link   
a reply to: moebius

hey no more of gps. i would have mentioned it in the op



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 05:31 AM
link   


Like ive said i dont dwell on the bunk field equations.


So, he doesn't waste time on equations, yet he claims to disprove one of the world's great Physicists. I wonder if he ever read somewhere that maths are to Truth like light is to Dark? Apparently not. Nor that the burden of proof is on the submitter, not the reviewer.


edit on 7-9-2016 by LetsGoViking because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

yes ive heard all that before. believe what you please



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 05:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
I stay from all the bunk on the internet


Actually, you seem to wallow in it by the contents of your Original Posts.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 05:52 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 06:03 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 06:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
a reply to: dragonridr

yes ive heard all that before. believe what you please


Has nothing to do with belief it is what the facts show. Belief is when you have a box in your backyard that you believe somehow negates gravity. But unfortunately can't prove it because you don't have a theory as to how. And worse can't even test said theory because you don't understand physics. That is a belief unfortunately science doesn't work on beliefs only what can be proved through experiments like the one you mention in your op. See in order to invalidate said experI mentioned which was done to prove relativity I might add is you have to have a valid interpretation to explain thr results. And this interpretation must also have tests that can be performed to show its validity.

Smoke and mirrors have been around for centuries it wasn't science then and it isn't now.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

I don't care who he is doesn't matter what does matter is in order to claim something is wrong you have to at least understand the topic in the first place. I know nothing about cars I'm not going to argue with a mechanic telling him he's wrong. Why simple he knows more about cars than I care to. Me telling him he's wrong is meaningless since he knows I know nothing about cars. Arguing against science works the same way you have to have an understanding of science in order to argue against it.

In this particular experiment several arguments were introduced and those arguments were invalidated. Thats why I find it funny you get people with Internet videos lauding anti gravity free energy etc. But 90 percent of the time it can be explained by science and isn't either of the two.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei
And no more of phd friend in NIST knowing some chow mein experimenter...

Are you referring to, "NIST postdoctoral researcher James Chin-Wen Chou, first author of the paper." as 'some chow mein experimenter' ??

o_O

MODS : This thread should be closed, in my opinion. Nochzwei is not only a moronic troll, but an obvious bigot/racist.

I'm out.

edit on 7-9-2016 by noonebutme because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 07:15 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Misterlondon

I believe you meant "you're not".



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 08:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Nochzwei

originally posted by: Greggers
Question for the OP: Can you at least identify which of Einsteins field equations you would use to prove that GR doesn't match this particular observed reality?
Like ive said i dont dwell on the bunk field equations.


If you don't understand the equations, you don't understand GR. Come back to us when you can show us how the math is wrong.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Wow! 6 pages of the OP saying no more than

-GR is bunk
-GPS satellites don't use GR
-And him having a tantrum because he's been asked for proof of his claims.

I'm starting to wonder why this is still in the science forum.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Time does stop at the event horizon of a black hole but it is my firm belief if one could go past the event horizon you would be in a universe which would be a mirror of ours where time runs backwards thusly creating a white hole and solving the paradoxical fact that matter cannot be destroyed.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Although ones perception of time I don't believe would change as you fell into the singularity, so your awful death from gravitational forces would be perceived in real time but IF and that's a big IF you could pass through a singularity you would enter backwards space but likely would not even perceive the fact that you would be taking all the steps that lead you to that point backwards. The thought blows my mind, but hey I'm schizo anyhow so a lot blows my mind lol



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScrappyJ
Time does stop at the event horizon of a black hole ....



originally posted by: ScrappyJ
Although ones perception of time I don't believe would change as you fell into the singularity...
We don't think your perception of time would change as you fell past the event horizon either, if the black hole had a large enough event horizon so you could survive, which the supermassive black holes do. So time wouldn't stop at the event horizon for the person falling in.

It's the external observer who would see time slowing down if they watched a clock held by the person falling into the black hole, but they would never really see time stop because the light from the clock would get too red-shifted to detect before that could happen.

If you could live to talk about it, some people would like to fall into a black hole to see what would really happen, but there are lots of things that could kill you long before you approached the center, like radiation outside the event horizon.

I'm not sure what your posts have to do with the OP's hoax though.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   
It doesn't have a lot to do with the OP's original post but hey it's more entertaining that false assumptions and ludacris assertations. I would have just made a thread about this theory but I'm not allowed to yet as I have spent the entire time since joining in lock up. I am a very long time reader of the threads here just the same, oh and heres a link I just found that is kinda along similar lines of my theory of backwards time. Though I'm not sure if it will be a live link or what as I'm a total newb.
phys.org...




top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join