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.

 

Einstein proved wrong by logic

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
The following is taken from an outer Source

It is not my work, but i do believe what it states... It is a long read but it will open your eyes and make you deny ignorance....


Einstein claims that a body at rest possesses a quantity of energy equivalent to its mass, and that kinetic energy of motion likewise corresponds to an equivalent amount of mass.

A body in motion therefore acquires an additional mass, which “varies with changes in its energy” and “becomes infinite when q (the velocity) approaches 1, the velocity of light. According to the theory of relativity,” Einstein says, “there is no essential distinction between mass and energy. Energy has mass and mass represents energy....”

"The Reciprocal System of Theory (formulated by Duey B. Larson) is in direct conflict with this interpretation of the equation.
From the Fundamental Postulates of this system we find that energy is a one-dimensional displacement of space-time, whereas mass is a three-dimensional displacement (rotational). Under appropriate conditions the dimensions of the displacement can be altered, hence mass is convertible to energy and vice versa.
The displacement can exist either ...


---Continued--


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Starting A New Thread – Please Review This Link

[edit on 31-12-2007 by Jbird]




posted on Dec, 29 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   
--continued--


The space-time progression, for instance, tends to cause objects to acquire unit velocity, and hence we say that it exerts unit force. But it is obvious that a tendency to impart unit velocity to an object which is already at a high velocity is not equivalent to a tendency to impart unit velocity to a body at rest.


read more here at the original Source



Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 31-12-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 03:39 AM
link   


Many of Einstein’s conclusions have been accepted without adequate critical scrutiny, and this mass-energy relation (E=MC Squared) definitely falls in this category.


Not true, relativity has been put under a great deal of scrutiny. When the theory was created, there were many who opposed it. The acceptance came when it was shown to be consistent with experiment.




If this relationship is examined from the standpoint of logic, it is apparent that Einstein’s contentions are internally inconsistent and must eventually fall of their own weight, irrespective of what any other theory may say. Mass cannot be something that is associated with energy (and therefore increases as the energy increases) and at the same time something that is convertible to energy (and therefore decreases as the energy increases)....


Energy becoming mass is not an example of energy decreasing, the energy is simply changing form. It isn’t contradictory.




Yet, oddly enough, while a host of scientific authorities of the highest rank are thus proclaiming that the postulated increase of mass with velocity has been proved by experiments with high-velocity electrons or protons and verified by the successful use of the theory in the design and construction of the particle accelerators, almost every elementary physics textbook admits, explicitly or tacitly, that this hypothesis of an increase in mass is only an arbitrary selection from among several possible explanations of the observed facts....


I have never seen a textbook state it like that. Most simply choose to define mass as an objects rest mass, and don’t include variable mass in their equations. You get the same results either way. Relativistic mass has generally fallen into disuse. Don’t forget that E=mc^2 is derived from the equation E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2 when p, the momentum, equals 0.




The truth is that the experiments with high velocity particles and the experience with the particle accelerators merely show that if a specific force is applied to a specific mass, the acceleration decreases at high velocities, following a pattern which indicates that it will reach zero at the velocity of light. If we are to maintain the relation a = F/m, it then necessarily follows that either the mass increases or the force decreases, or both.


Actually in relativity, even when using variable mass in the equations, force does not equal mass*acceleration. The actual equation is F=ma/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)+m(v*a)v/(1-(v/c)^2)^(3/2), where F, a, and v are vectors and m is the rest mass. An exception would be when using four-vectors, but in that case the rest mass is used.




The limit placed on mankind's thinking by einstein's dysfunctional theories and quantum mechanics, has helped keep mankind in it's cage of mental confinement, while the energy barons run free and wild, with riches beyond the dreams of the common grunt who is being gutted by them financially, without even knowing of the beautiful alternative world we could have with a technological system which copies nature and produces abundance for all.


What does that have to do with any of this? How exactly does relativity and quantum mechanics keep us away from free energy?

This article has really done very little in the way of proving Einstein wrong by logic. Much of it seems to be about him claiming that force approaches zero at high velocity and that relativity is “retarded” and an “abominable idea.”



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lethys

Energy becoming mass is not an example of energy decreasing, the energy is simply changing form. It isn’t contradictory.


If “mass and energy, are only different expressions for the same thing", as Einstein declares, then we cannot have a conversion of one to the other; we cannot convert anything into itself.
But such a conversion clearly does take place. An atomic explosion, for example, is not a mere alteration in terminology or a conceptual reorientation; it is an actual physical event, and hence Einstein’s viewpoint cannot be correct.


Do you even read the article or just go over it to debunk it?



I have never seen a textbook state it like that. Most simply choose to define mass as an objects rest mass, and don’t include variable mass in their equations. You get the same results either way. Relativistic mass has generally fallen into disuse. Don’t forget that E=mc^2 is derived from the equation E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2 when p, the momentum, equals 0.


I have seen many textbook state it just like that.
The equation has nothing to do with reality, yes it looks nice in paper and in theory, but it isnt a picture of what happens in reality.



Actually in relativity, even when using variable mass in the equations, force does not equal mass*acceleration. The actual equation is F=ma/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)+m(v*a)v/(1-(v/c)^2)^(3/2), where F, a, and v are vectors and m is the rest mass. An exception would be when using four-vectors, but in that case the rest mass is used.


Again it works in the equation but it isnt what happens in reality...
Certainly the hypothesis of an increase in mass is consistent with the observed facts, but this is by no means the equivalent of the proof that is claimed.
The door is wide open for any alternative explanation which calls for a decrease in the effective force: either a decrease in the magnitude of the entity responsible for the force (an electric charge, in the usual case) or a reduction in the effective component of the force....(the second choice is obviously the correct interpretation, because a mass becoming infinite, solely because it is accelerated to the speed of light, wreaks of stupidity, intuitively speaking it makes one sick to think of such a retarded idea)....


Once again the answer is in the article...




What does that have to do with any of this? How exactly does relativity and quantum mechanics keep us away from free energy?


If you can't answer that question yourself, I must take it that you do not understand Einsteins impact on todays science and socalled laws.
Even Einstein said he didnt even understand his own theory after quantum mechanics took over, but i will find proof of quantum mechanics flaws aswell in another post soon.


This article has really done very little in the way of proving Einstein wrong by logic. Much of it seems to be about him claiming that force approaches zero at high velocity and that relativity is “retarded” and an “abominable idea.”


It has proven him wrong just as stated above, and it doesnt say relativity is retarded, it states that Einsteins view on relativity is flawfull.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Bluess, at best, I could say that you’re debating semantics. But really, you’re just talking nonsense.

If a chemist told you something was oxidizing, would you tell him “No, it’s burning”?



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   
After visiting the source site and after reading your reply to lethys post I think you are the one who should read a bit more about science.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I've got to say, I find this thread (and many others like it which can be found here on ATS) to be an example of a truly pernicious effect of the Internet: that just about anyone in the world can put up a website which espouses some of the most bizarre and downright crackpot "scientific" theories and then the gullible, unsophisticated and impressionable masses read these tracts and for some unknown reason find them to be more accurate descriptions of the universe than those theories which have experimental evidence to back them up.

And most of the time you can tell from the posters' writings that they really just don't have a solid grasp of basic, rudimentary highschool physics and therefore probably shouldn't be delving into this fringe stuff without the proper background. It's like trying to understand Heidegger without ever having read anything else from the history of philosophy. One could try it, but chances are that you'd come out of the experience with a cranium full of mush.

I could be horribly wrong here but given that the bulk of what Bluess has posted here is cut-and-paste from vortexpluswater.com and very, very little of his/her own words and thoughts about what this site is stating, I am forced to think that Bluess has, as a result of an inadequate and incomplete understanding of basic physics, been unwittingly duped by the claims of that site.

That said, I don't want to leave the impression that I believe that every alternative-science website out there is necessarily worthless. But when you come across a site like vortexpluswater, which mixes science with politics with the federal reserve with 911-theories, makes reference to "fraudulent mythematics [sic]", etc. ... well, I don't think that it's too difficult to see that something just ain't quite right here.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Why is that that some people think they know so much better than the thousands of scientists who have done experiments to prove/disprove relativity and found time and again that relativity works?


If “mass and energy, are only different expressions for the same thing", as Einstein declares, then we cannot have a conversion of one to the other; we cannot convert anything into itself.
But such a conversion clearly does take place. An atomic explosion, for example, is not a mere alteration in terminology or a conceptual reorientation; it is an actual physical event, and hence Einstein’s viewpoint cannot be correct.


Actually, mass and energy are different expressions OF the same thing, not for the same thing, which makes a huge difference. Mass is a highly concentrated form of energy, according to relativity, and in a nuclear explosion, some of the mass of the fissionable material is turned into energy.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   


If “mass and energy, are only different expressions for the same thing", as Einstein declares, then we cannot have a conversion of one to the other; we cannot convert anything into itself.


Semantics. This is a frequent source of confusion to people who are learning or aren’t familiar with relativity. Lonemaverick described it best.




The equation has nothing to do with reality, yes it looks nice in paper and in theory, but it isnt a picture of what happens in reality.


Actually the equation does describe what is happening in reality. Its been tested again and again.




If you can't answer that question yourself, I must take it that you do not understand Einsteins impact on todays science and socalled laws.


Relativity and quantum mechanics didn’t create the laws of thermodynamics. And appeals to emotion don’t make Einstein wrong.




Even Einstein said he didnt even understand his own theory after quantum mechanics took over, but i will find proof of quantum mechanics flaws aswell in another post soon.


If that’s what you decide to do then I’ll be ready.




and it doesnt say relativity is retarded, it states that Einsteins view on relativity is flawfull.


Actually it does. Here take a look.




because a mass becoming infinite, solely because it is accelerated to the speed of light, wreaks of stupidity, intuitively speaking it makes one sick to think of such a retarded idea)....

… herefore we can easily see that einstein's abominable idea that mass becomes infinite as it approaches the speed of light is just as stupid as the idea that the infinite Universe was once smaller than an Atom, before the imaginary big wank (bang) placed all of the galaxies, stars, planets and moons in their present orbits.


That site seems to contain a lot of childish ad homs.

I find it interesting that the site doesn’t seem to mention momentum at all, especially since force is really just the rate of change of momentum over time.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   
As I said before, the whole mass conversion argument is just semantics. In a nuclear explosion, the energy is at first tallied as part of the mass of the nuclear fuel, and then is tallied as part of the explosion. Same can be said for the creation of electron positron pairs. The energy is tallied an unchanged before they are created, when they exist, and when they annihilate.

Force really isn’t all that important in this context, momentum is, as force is nothing more then the rate of change of momentum in an object. When two objects collide, they exchange momentum. He seems to be trying to argue that force decreases instead of mass increasing at relativistic speeds, but this doesn’t explain the effects seen in relativistic collisions. A decreasing electric charge as he offered in an example, wouldn't have such an effect on the collisions themselves.

Aside from the semantics argument in the beginning, he offers nothing in your excerpts against relativity aside from ad homs and nothing in support of his view. No mechanism, no basic theory. The word momentum appears only once in his entire website, which is something that is important when your talking about force.

And then at the end of what you posted from him, he tries to make us hate relativity and quantum mechanics because it somehow holds back free energy, even though the laws of thermodynamics predate them, and tries to blame it for us being oppressed by the energy companies. As I said before, appeals to emotion won’t disprove relativity and quantum mechanics.


[edit on 30-12-2007 by Lethys]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 06:57 AM
link   
I haven't read the article yet, but will when i have time, but let me tell you this. Logic doesn't govern the universe.

"logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe. Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be impossible, period. It was also believed at one time that Euclidean geometry was a universal law; it is, after all, logically consistent. Again, we now know that the rules of Euclidean geometry are not universal."



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by AncientVoid
 


Actually, any example of when we thought something was “logically impossible” when it actually wasn’t, it was more an example of our own flawed or incomplete logic then of logic itself being flawed. After all, we are imperfect creatures. Logic is the best way learn about the universe, and I would like to see just what exactly you suggest as an alternative.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Noscitare
I've got to say, I find this thread (and many others like it which can be found here on ATS) to be an example of a truly pernicious effect of the Internet: that just about anyone in the world can put up a website which espouses some of the most bizarre and downright crackpot "scientific" theories and then the gullible, unsophisticated and impressionable masses read these tracts and for some unknown reason find them to be more accurate descriptions of the universe than those theories which have experimental evidence to back them up.


It's not just the Internet. Lunatics trying to "disprove" Einstein has a rich history decades long, way before the Internet. Shaggy nimnuls pop up out of their basements after wrestling with the equations, looking for some kind of fame or fortune or something for being such massive geniuses. Most of the time, these characters only have a marginal understanding of the math, along with the hard research that has been done to test the theories. If they were that smart, why aren't they at Cal Tech or MIT? (The answer is, "The scientific establishment is conspiring against me.")

It's a psychological quirk on par with people thinking that they're somehow channeling Jesus or are the reincarnated Jesus. Sad little people who are fascinated by fame and desperately ache for some of their own, except they aren't willing to work and sacrifice to get it. They want to get a little bit of that reflected stardust to somehow justify their own insignificant lives.

There's some of this at work in the "Moon/Mars Anomaly" threads in the UFO forum. People who want to be lauded as the discoverers of evidence/proof of alien civilization, using photos that have somehow eluded the evil experts at NASA. These folks could possibly go to college and work their way up to actually professionally work at JPL or NASA with the original images, but that would take actual time and effort and commitment.

Instead, they cook up a wacky "theory" and blame others for their lack of official acceptance and success.


[edit on 31-12-2007 by Nohup]



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lethys
reply to post by AncientVoid
 


Actually, any example of when we thought something was “logically impossible” when it actually wasn’t, it was more an example of our own flawed or incomplete logic then of logic itself being flawed. After all, we are imperfect creatures. Logic is the best way learn about the universe, and I would like to see just what exactly you suggest as an alternative.


What I'm saying is that logic is the human way of thinking and doesn't apply to everything in the universe as it's a bit weak in the area of science which requires proof and facts. As you said we have an incomplete logic and you want to know what an alternative for this is? How about actually experimenting and collecting evidence. Is it logical that the length of an object is not constant? What we see as 5cm could actually be 1cm?(this still seems weird to me). Einstein thought differently about the world and it was then that he discovered his special relativity. I'm not saying logic isn't good, just weak in some areas.



posted on Dec, 31 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Einstein's theories have held up on experiment after experiment and it turned out that Einstein's calculations where right, even when he thought he was wrong.

If Einstein hadn't been so good at math, he'd be called a prophet.



posted on Jan, 2 2008 @ 07:58 AM
link   
I will not really comment to the people questioning my understanding of science, and trying to use it, as evidence to undermine the facts I write. This, like many established theories, are simple mindgames made to support their own view of things.

The source i linked to in the OP, has an Intermediate Explanation section without policy, conspiracy and the likes, if you find that conspiracy is undermining the truth it states. It is here aswell as in the link i already posted: Source -without conspiracy

I would like to see some links to where theese supposed experiments that prove Einstein right is located?....

The intepritation from any experiments done by established scientists, draw their conclusions on theory mathmatical models more than actual reality...
For examble the smashing of an atom doesnt show how the atom is buildt...
If I took a sledge hammer and smashed a TV all to pieces, have I revealed the actual "parts" which a manufacturer assembles to make a TV, or have I shown merely how a TV disintegrates?
The "atom smashing" experiments only show how the atom breaks up, not how it is put together.

Science says protons are positively charged and tightly clustered in the nucleus, but like-charges, would strongly repel in such close proximity. Why doesn’t the nucleus fly apart?

They couldnt figure it out so they simply decided the answer must be that some type of mysterious attracting force must appear for some unexplained reason between protons when they are very close, counteracting their mutual repulsion.
This mysterious new attracting force is called the Strong Nuclear Force, and is now taught as one of the four fundamental forces of nature in todays science.

comon...get real pls...

Neither black holes, the big bang, gravitational waves, dark energy nor dark matter have ever been observed.
They rely on the ideas, postulated by Einstein and others, where as for examble plasma science is directly linked to observable facts.

The dark energy and dark matter are both bandages invented to attempt to save a gravity theory which does not match observations. A theory which needs such big bandages is in serious trouble.


The mathematical structures of general relativity and quantum mechanics, the two great theoretical achievements of 20th century physics, seem utterly incompatible. Some physicists, worried by this and by our continued inability to unite the four forces of nature -- gravitation, electromagnetism , and the strong and weak nuclear forces -- suspect that general relativity needs amendment.
einstein.stanford.edu

If one looks at work from other part of the science community, witch is not supported by the majority, one might find some true answers in things.
here are some parts that need to be considered:

Reciprocal System of Physical Theory
Plasma cosmology
Magnets and electricity
Classical Mechanics
Natures patterns and movement
Phi, fractals, spiral/vortex geometry and mathmatics
Classic science theories development into modern science theories
Real life Obsevation vs. theory models
And much more...


I do not claim to be the writer of any science, but that doesnt mean I can't understand science and compare it with obsevasions made by the science community, and see that something is utterly wrong with established theories.

Einstein was a great man and without him we would never have come this far, but we need to be able to see beyond him, to get any further. Its not against the laws of nature to disagree with Einstein you know?



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 12:41 AM
link   


The source i linked to in the OP, has an Intermediate Explanation section without policy, conspiracy and the likes, if you find that conspiracy is undermining the truth it states.


Maybe there is a bug on the site but aside from the title, I haven’t been able to find any differences between the intermediate and the full version. The conspiracies and politics still appear. Still as I said, this may be just a bug.




I would like to see some links to where theese supposed experiments that prove Einstein right is located?....


Here is a site that lists a number of experiments that support special relativity. math.ucr.edu...

Though I suppose you’d like a little more detail on the specific experiments, so here are a couple of the more famous ones.

The Rossi-Hall experiment confirmed the effects of time dilation on muon decay. en.wikipedia.org...

The Hafele-Keating experiment tested kinematic and gravitational time dilation with atomic clocks. hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

Here is a recent experiment that tested E=MC^2. www.nist.gov...

It accurately described the orbit of mercury, where Newtonian gravity deviated.(under advanced perihelion) en.wikipedia.org...

The Cassini orbiter and the Huygens probe performed tests on relativity. en.wikipedia.org...

Gravity probe A tested gravitational time dilation. en.wikipedia.org...

Gravity probe B confirmed the geodetic effect. en.wikipedia.org...

GPS must special relativity into account and thus constantly tests it. en.wikipedia.org...




If I took a sledge hammer and smashed a TV all to pieces, have I revealed the actual "parts" which a manufacturer assembles to make a TV, or have I shown merely how a TV disintegrates?


Everything that was in the TV when it was built is still in it when it was smashed, even if those parts have also been smashed. Atoms are not the only things that are collided in particle accelerators, hadrons and leptons are used as well. The theories predict what happens when particles collide and scatter. Also, not everything done in accelerators is about breaking apart particles, many new particles are also created.




They couldnt figure it out so they simply decided the answer must be that some type of mysterious attracting force must appear for some unexplained reason between protons when they are very close, counteracting their mutual repulsion.


Why is adding a new force to explain something countering the electromagnetic repulsion and holding the nucleus together considered “not being able to figure it out?” It seems to be the most logical conclusion. And the strong nuclear force is hardly mysterious, and is described in quantum chromodynamics.




Neither black holes, the big bang, gravitational waves, dark energy nor dark matter have ever been observed.


Black holes still have other effects that can and have been observed, even if the black hole itself can’t be seen. We may even have what may be direct evidence of blackholes. www.space.com...

It is quite understandable why gravitational waves haven’t been detected yet, they’re just too weak. If by the time our ability to detect them increases by enough and we still can’t find them, then they’ll be a problem. Relativity has more ways to prove itself then just gravitational waves.


he mathematical structures of general relativity and quantum mechanics, the two great theoretical achievements of 20th century physics, seem utterly incompatible. Some physicists, worried by this and by our continued inability to unite the four forces of nature -- gravitation, electromagnetism , and the strong and weak nuclear forces -- suspect that general relativity needs amendment.


Just because a problem is difficult doesn’t mean it will never be solved. The problem of infinities isn’t new in quantum field theory, its just that in this case the usual methods for dealing with it can’t be used. Loop quantum gravity and string theory, although incomplete, are attempts at quantum gravity. Solving this problem may require some great insight like the ones Einstein had a century ago.



[edit on 3-1-2008 by Lethys]

[edit on 3-1-2008 by Lethys]

[edit on 3-1-2008 by Lethys]



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 08:43 AM
link   
All of the experiments so proudly proclaimed by the orthodox relativists can also be attributed to Lorentzian relativity (presented the year before Einsteins SR) and in fact favour LR, particularly in the case of GPS. I believe GPS is also modified by Sagnac equations which also contradict SR. Actually the biggest variable to the signals are a result of disturbances in the ionosphere, the relativity adjustments are minuscule in comparison.

Several experiments have shown the anisotropy of light. Much of the argument can be traced back to tragic misrepresentation of the Michelson and Morley experiment. The data was re examined several years ago using both Lorentz contraction and atmospheric effects instead of the flawed Newtonian physics used at the time. Absolute motion was apparent.

I've have often resisted the urge to consider suppression and conspiracy in science, however the more I learn the harder it is to deny it.



posted on Jan, 3 2008 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Noscitare
then the gullible, unsophisticated and impressionable masses read these tracts and for some unknown reason find them to be more accurate descriptions of the universe than those theories which have experimental evidence to back them up.


Actually, I think I have figured out the reason. You see, the real science is hard and inaccessible to the masses for practical reasons: you surely know that it takes years of training and practice to acquire a modicum of expertise in science. Now, the "unsophisticated and impressionable masses", as you call them, want their vanity satisfied here and now, because honestly it's humiliating to be looking at the Universe and realizing that you don't have a goddamn clue. When yet another charlatane sets up his Internet tent, the uneducated flock.

Just like some people settle for p-o-r-n when real s:e:x is unavailable, so the masses settle for bizzare and most often silly "theories" that appear to be within their intellectual grasp.


And most of the time you can tell from the posters' writings that they really just don't have a solid grasp of basic, rudimentary highschool physics and therefore probably shouldn't be delving into this fringe stuff without the proper background.


See the above...



[edit on 3-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 07:00 AM
link   
What I would like to know, is if the original poster has in any way been swayed from his original view on the subject (Ie, the one stated on the posted website), or does he retain his original beliefs even though most posters in the thread has tried to explain how wrong it is?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join