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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   
When I state in the OP, that I believe what is said on the vortexpluswater site, I was refearing to the statement on Einstein being wrong.

I do not claim to believe every bit of information stated on the site, be it other theories, or conspiracies.
Nor do I claim not to believe them, that is for me to know and you to think about only.

Lot of the experiments confirming Einstein theories are based on imagination and mathematical models that supports the theory or part of the theory.

I present here a lot of links, with detail on several flaws, visit them and read to see more support, on Einstein being flawed and also cosmology in general.

-------------------
13 things that does not make sence
space.newscientist.com

This site shows several flaws in standard science and hits Einstein to, a couple of times.

The horizon problem
Ultra-energetic cosmic rays problem
Dark matter problem
Tetraneutrons problem
Not-so-constant constants problem

-------------------
Marinov has shown all falsity of SRT postulates.
bourabai.narod.ru

This Russian scientists performed the "coupled mirrors" experiment.
During this experiment St. Marinov has discovered that the velocity of light,
measured along the chosen direction on a ground surface is various, at various day time.

-------------------
Revealing Einstein's Mistakes
relativitychallenge

This is a "Mathematical Analysis And Mistake Identification" that proves flaws in einsteins mathmatics.
This is really deep mathmatics and clearly shows flaws of Einstein once again.

-------------------
Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics
newtonphysics

This is a site witch covers alot of grounds including:
- Demonstration of the Lorentz Equations without Einstein's Relativity Principles
- Fundamental Nature of the Mechanism Responsible for the Advance of the Perihelion of Mercury

It basically shows how alot of theories can be explained without Einsteins theories at all.

--------------------
Flaws in the logic of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity
theory

This site shows The apparent incompatibility of the law of propagation of light with the principle of relativity.

--------------

Many posts in this thread seem to think that any thought and imaginary experimental issue, contradicting with Einstein, is nonsence thought experiments.
But seems to lack the knowledge that Einstein was the master of thought and imaginary experiments, and alot of his theories are based on that.

And for all you creepy people who thinks, that all who dares to "think outside the box" has either an inadequate and incomplete understanding of basic physics or only have a marginal understanding of the math, or compare us with people channeling Jesus, can curl up under a rock and continue sleeping. As you obviously know nothing of mine or any others understanding, but still seem to use your assumptions, to justify your wrongfully and lame accusations.

And for people who calls us the "unsophisticated and impressionable masses" who and I quote:
"settle for bizzare and most often silly "theories" that appear to be within their intellectual grasp"
and apperently are settling for p-o-r-n instead of s-e-x.
I would like to introduce you to the concept of reflection...Meaning people who reflect their own flaws apon other people instead of recognize them within themself. I believe you belong in that catagory!

There are questions still not answered by standard science, there are obvious flaws in the system and theories, there are several other valid theories and concepts, witch not only works in theory, but also relates to actual reality.

I Still believe standard science has flaws and I still believe Einsteins theories has flaws.




posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bluess
Lot of the experiments confirming Einstein theories are based on imagination


You sound mighty confused. Experiments are experiments. You don't imagine an experiment unless it's "Gedanken", or thought experiment, but that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about real experiments.

I chose randomly this link of yours to give it some consideration


Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics
newtonphysics


And I found the reasoning used in it quite laughable, facts distorted, and math mis-applied. And the other link, on the "flaws", is pretty much pseudo-science gibberish.


And for all you creepy people who thinks, that all who dares to "think outside the box" has either an inadequate and incomplete understanding of basic physics or only have a marginal understanding of the math, or compare us with people channeling Jesus, can curl up under a rock and continue sleeping.


Why, let us please continue research in physics and other areas. It's really exciting stuff, you know. Really takes some out of the box thinking.



As you obviously know nothing of mine or any others understanding, but still seem to use your assumptions, to justify your wrongfully and lame accusations.


You sound very angry, but look at your choice of the name for this thread. "Einstein was wrong and I'll show you how". Does it not strike you as a little pompous?


[edit on 7-1-2008 by buddhasystem]



posted on Jan, 7 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 



Originally posted by buddhasystem

You sound mighty confused. Experiments are experiments. You don't imagine an experiment unless it's "Gedanken", or thought experiment, but that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about real experiments.


I am not confused at all... having read several books about Einstein I know exactly what i mean. But maybe you don't understand what I mean? please say if you dont understand what i mean and I will gladly explain it to you. and to quote me correctly i said:
"Lots of the experiments confirming Einstein theories, are based on imagination and mathematical models that supports the theory or part of the theory."


I chose randomly this link of yours to give it some consideration

Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics
newtonphysics

And I found the reasoning used in it quite laughable, facts distorted, and math mis-applied. And the other link, on the "flaws", is pretty much pseudo-science gibberish.


well please show us the laughable distorted facts then, and post the correct facts if you know this. And have you read the other sites i linked to?
give this one a try for examble: relativitychallenge


Why, let us please continue research in physics and other areas. It's really exciting stuff, you know. Really takes some out of the box thinking.


I think so too, and enjoy it every day. I also enjoy to open me eyes to other theories besides the one i have learned in academic life.


You sound very angry, but look at your choice of the name for this thread. "Einstein was wrong and I'll show you how". Does it not strike you as a little pompous?


well I am not angry, I simply just made a counter attack on accusations made against my person and my understandings.
In my OP and in later posts, I also stated that I don't claim to have proved him wrong and I still don't. but the links I have provided does.




[edit on 7-1-2008 by Bluess]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluess
I am not confused at all... having read several books about Einstein I know exactly what i mean.

I hate using smileys, so please picture in your mind a line of seventeen horses laughing at you.

Have you read any books by Einstein?

Do you understand the mathematics of relativity?

Thought not.



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by Bluess
I am not confused at all... having read several books about Einstein I know exactly what i mean.

I hate using smileys, so please picture in your mind a line of seventeen horses laughing at you.

Have you read any books by Einstein?

Do you understand the mathematics of relativity?

Thought not.


Wrong again... why do you make assumptions to back up your claims, instead of just asking if I have read any book by Einstein?

I have read several and yes i understand the math involved very well.

I have read (and theese are the ones that just comes to mind):
Relativity: The special and the general Theory
the principle/meaning/theory of relativity (3 books total)
several volumes of: The collected papers of Albert Einstein
and several essays aswell, all by Albert Einstein.

But if you also read the books about Albert Einstein you will learn about his life, education, teachers and see many relations to the developments of his theories aswell.

So please post all the smileys you can, but remember they are smiling at yourself, and your wrong and ridiculous assumptions!



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I think that Einstein new alot of what he was talking about .
But the science,math and physics of the time would not allow him to propery explain it.
Quantum concepts that are being revised by Vortex/spiral math are proving that he was right in many ways.
yes quantum math has many mistakes but only because of the model
that came before it.
kinda like my trying to figure out life armed only with a bible as my sole source of information..



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   


Lot of the experiments confirming Einstein theories are based on imagination and mathematical models that supports the theory or part of the theory.


Did you look through that site I linked? The many experiments listed weren’t thought experiments.




This site shows several flaws in standard science and hits Einstein to, a couple of times.


That article just shows the limits of our current understanding, and the examples don’t really deal a whole lot with relativity. Science makes no claims that we know everything, and there is so much more to discover about our world.





This Russian scientists performed the "coupled mirrors" experiment. During this experiment St. Marinov has discovered that the velocity of light,
measured along the chosen direction on a ground surface is various, at various day time.


Did anyone else repeat his experiment and get the same results? Otherwise, and especially when compared to all the other experiments that agree with the isotropy of light, this could be nothing more then experimental error. If the experiment has never been repeated, how can we know for certain. The tests that agree with Einstein have been repeated, which is how we know it wasn’t just sloppy science, or even rigged in favor of Einstein.




This is a "Mathematical Analysis And Mistake Identification" that proves flaws in einsteins mathmatics.


The first equation is the distance a beam of light travels in the moving frame over a given time interval as measured in that frame. The variables he gives do not coincide with what would be possible for a photon emitted at the origin for both frames. They do not obey the equation t=x’/(c-v), which is used to connect the first two equations to the last two. Such a mistake doesn’t speak well for the rest of the site.

To Maya432:




Quantum concepts that are being revised by Vortex/spiral math are proving that he was right in many ways.


Prove it.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by Lethys]



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I have one question. As I understand it, photons are supposed to be massless. So, if E=MC^2 is true, if mass (M) is zero, how can it have any energy?



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
I have one question. As I understand it, photons are supposed to be massless. So, if E=MC^2 is true, if mass (M) is zero, how can it have any energy?
Photos do not have mass, but they do have momentum (p). And E=pc, so photons do have energy.

Read these:
math.ucr.edu...
math.ucr.edu...



posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
E=mc^2 is a shorthand for the equation E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2 where m is the rest mass. So in the case of the photon, it is possible to have energy without rest mass.

To Maya432: A more detailed response

How exactly would vortex/spiral math support Einstein. In special relativity, quantum field theory is already doing an excellent job showing Einstein to be right. As for quantum gravity, I see nothing that shows that vortex/spiral math has anything to do with it.

So I ask again, prove that vortex/spiral math is proving anything right, or even itself, within quantum mechanics.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluess
 


Oh boy...

You see, here... we don't know what the universe is, yet. We can define some of its functions and tendencies... but we're still trying to figure out what it really is.

For instance... we're finding that there is very little difference between light and mater. Light was believed to be different because it was a wave of particles (although that is still debated). It expresses characteristics of both a particle and a wave. On further observation - we are finding these same tendencies in 'normal' mater.

Thus... we must ask what in the world our universe really is... and what it is we are made of. It seems there is an endless series of sub-atomic particles that make up our universe - and some apparent medium that our universe exists within..... but what it is continues to elude us.

I have my own theories that I have developed.... and, interestingly, the more I learn about quantum physics and theories such as the "string" theory, and many other side theories.... I'm not the first to develop such theories.

One such example would be waves on top of a pool of water. Setting various agitators to generate waves of different frequencies and energies can generate 'peaks'. With enough sophistication and control, you can make those peaks 'move' in a circle. This is called "positive interference" and is often used in generating 3d sound from 2 speakers.

Applying this principle to multi-dimensional waveforms (which is very, very hard to imagine), you can create similar effects in any number of dimensions. And in very complex and advanced systems, you can have multiple 'layers' of this going on, creating complex structures that interact with each other.

I believe in "free energy", too. I believe the universe is infinite and that we will eventually find a way of taking an infinite amount of energy from a once-believed finite source. But I can't bend the rules of physics to facilitate that. I can come up with theories and ideas about the universe, I can challenge the current line of thought. But you can't 'think' established laws/tendencies of physics out of existence.

It is my life's goal to radically change our understanding of the universe and develop a device to do what I described above. Will I be able to do it? If it's possible - I will. I'll start with getting something as simple as cold fusion to work, and make my way from there (yes, I know it's a bold claim - but - why not? I've got a family history of innovation and getting things to work. I'm from German/Austrian descent, you know - it's in my blood).

But with all due respect - Einstein was right, and has been right. However, there are realms of the universe he could not even envision or think about - so there will eventually be ways 'around' the restrictions presented by relativity and other known physics models, today. Just as there will be things 100 years from now that I cannot even think about or comprehend because their study doesn't even exist yet.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 06:15 AM
link   
I'm not going to bother arguing with the OP, others here have done so more than adequately, however since there were a few posts talking about dark matter, here's an interesting article that is a more elegant solution to the matter of anti matter..

www.livescience.com...



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluess
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.


There is a fundamental difference here. Your opponents in this thread are arguing rationally. You are sharing a religious experience.

You have stopped listening, if indeed you ever did listen, and are instead attempting to proselytise on behalf of your new faith, which has as its central tenet that Einstein is wrong (how exactly by the way escapes me), and that therefore, an absence of study in a requisite field is no longer the bar to understanding and erudition we others may see it as. Indeed, the less educated one is, the better, for now you clearly understand, after your conversion, that to be educated is to know less and less. Unfettered by this disadvantage it is for you to lead the way.

Into an age of darkness.

No thanks.



posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by DogHead
 



Originally posted by DogHead

There is a fundamental difference here. Your opponents in this thread are arguing rationally. You are sharing a religious experience.


A religious experience... You are way of topic and I do not believe in any religion at all. I do believe in reality though. If you dont like my way of arguing that is ofcourse your problem.


You have stopped listening, if indeed you ever did listen, and are instead attempting to proselytise on behalf of your new faith, which has as its central tenet that Einstein is wrong (how exactly by the way escapes me).


What you call a faith, I call Fractals, electromagnetics, Plasma cosmology, and so on...for one.. Plasma cosmology doesnt really say that Einstein is wrong, they say he didnt have the todays knowledge to make correct theories.
Saying Einstein was wrong, is something alot of other people indicate, and I have to agree with them.
Wrong is a strong word ofcourse and doesnt mean that everything he ever came up with is wrong, but that certain aspects of his theories where wrong. Just like I have tried to show in the various links I have provided.

And in order to see where Einstein went of track, so to speak, you actually have to study him...perhaps that is why it "escapes you"?

I do not hold on to wrong established theories, I do not hold on to any religion, I don't need an imaginary Black hole, curved space, speed of light limit and other wierd concepts to observe and compare the real universe of elektromagnetic forces.
When the mathmatical formulations of established science, nolonger can explain the observed features of our universe, but the observed features actually indicate that the mathmatical theories are flawed and wrong...

Then you have the choise, either to "rebuildt" the existant theory to inline with observations, or to look for another theory.
Established science will never abandon established theories of cosmological magnitude ofcourse, and some of their models can explain a great deal, so ofcourse they "rebuildt" or "add" new things to their theories. But that doesnt mean they are right! And more and more people are disagreeing too!


and that therefore, an absence of study in a requisite field is no longer the bar to understanding and erudition we others may see it as. Indeed, the less educated one is, the better, for now you clearly understand, after your conversion, that to be educated is to know less and less. Unfettered by this disadvantage it is for you to lead the way.


Theese claims you make here are on your own account. If you feel that people behind the plasma cosmology, people who apose Einstein, people behind Reciprocal system of theory and many others, including myself, are uneducated fools, you are in denial.


Into an age of darkness.


If you believe that any theory or Education, that doesnt follow Einstein 100%, will lead us into an age of darkness, then you must think that the present day of our lives is already an age of light?
well congratulations on loving war, hunger, sickness, poverty and the likes.
Because that is the present day allready!.

I seek more the loving, freedom filled, rich, religion free world of tomorrow, but you can call it age of darkness if that pleases you.

I must say that you write in a very sophisticated manner, but when you compare my motives with religious experience you lead me to think that you are indeed the religious one, clinging on to the yesterday world, instead of exploring the real world.

I will continue to provide this thread with links to flaws in Einsteins theory. Believe it or not.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join