Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

All Of Science Is A Lie

page: 20
54
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by nekawa

Originally posted by ibiubu
Einstein's theory of relativity is very much open to debate.


So I suppose e=mc2 is just a theory and the atomic bomb means nothing to you...


Tesla was one of the greatest geniuses in history and you can thank him for a multitude of technology you take for granted every day, in which he get's no credit for.

He also was against Einsteins theory and description of energy. Tesla says energy is force over time. He also points out the ridiculousness of matter curving space. Every object that is acted upon, reacts, so it stands to reason that matter acting upon space by curving it should result in space reacting by straightening out. Makes sense to me, why should space hold to be any different? Einsteinian physicists can't even tell us what space is, if they can't manage that then how do they know it's actually curving and not some other effect is taking place that is being overlooked because they are too busy worshiping a moron who had to steal his idea and then screw it up?

Forgot to add:


While E = mc2 is useful for understanding the amount of energy potentially released in a fission reaction, it was not strictly necessary to develop the weapon.
link

No need to give him credit for something his crack pot theories weren't needed for.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by sirnex]




posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The standard model is a joke.
[edit on 7-4-2010 by mnemeth1]


Yeah, those pesky brilliant scientist, and their whacky experiments and theories... when they could all just google it like you... and then make an OP as ridiculous as yours.



The LHC isn't going to produce anything period.


LMAO you really mean this right?
Just like you mean "i can't see a black hole in that picture"... i'm speechless

FYI the LHC is providing us with Petabytes of new information which previously could only be simulated. I'm not even going to respond to the other deluded claims you make about black-holes, dark matter/ bingbang never happened...


The stars you are observing could not possibly have formed at the galactic center according to standard theory.


Are you rating and raving about the standard model , or the theory of relativity here? FYI they are 2 different things. There's no such thing as the "standard theory"


An unending stream of lies.

IS this your summary of your own OP?

I swear i've never seen a more ignorant "rant" on ATS about science.

Hey, let's just all give up science, we'll just f*cking google it all from now on...



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by XyZeR
 



Yeah, those pesky brilliant scientist, and their whacky experiments and theories... when they could all just google it like you... and then make an OP as ridiculous as yours.


Yea, Einstein was so brilliant that he plagiarized relativity from Lorentz, took out the aether and gave us a theory that has produced nothing but invisible explanations to describe the universe. First we needed dark matter to explain away Einsteins wrong prediction of the universes mass, then even dark matter wasn't enough, so we invented dark energy.

It's like... duh? Only, we have simple minded ass kissers incapable of thinking for themselves who hold onto a nearly hundred year old dying model that needs to invent invisible things to explain away observations that defy it.


LMAO you really mean this right?
Just like you mean "i can't see a black hole in that picture"... i'm speechless

FYI the LHC is providing us with Petabytes of new information which previously could only be simulated. I'm not even going to respond to the other deluded claims you make about black-holes, dark matter/ bingbang never happened...


Right, the LHC is just going to magically prove Einstein right about mass. Then, then we will know what all these magical invisible things are!


Are you rating and raving about the standard model , or the theory of relativity here? FYI they are 2 different things. There's no such thing as the "standard theory"


Google standard theory of the universe, it leads you to the standard model which is derived from relativity. What exactly were you arguing again?


IS this your summary of your own OP?

I swear i've never seen a more ignorant "rant" on ATS about science.


Since when was recent discoveries and updated knowledge considered ignorant? You have an odd outlook on science.


Hey, let's just all give up science, we'll just f*cking google it all from now on.


Yikes! You think science is stagnant or something? Are you unable to keep up with the pace of scientific research or do you disagree that new observations falsify archaic scientific opinion?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Yea, Einstein was so brilliant that he plagiarized relativity from Lorentz, took out the aether and gave us a theory that has produced nothing but invisible explanations to describe the universe. First we needed dark matter to explain away Einsteins wrong prediction of the universes mass, then even dark matter wasn't enough, so we invented dark energy.


No need to rant dude...
Care to show me where in my post did i talk about Einstein.....?
You dragged him in to this, not me...
FYI I was talking about the scientists @ the LHC...


Right, the LHC is just going to magically prove Einstein right about mass. Then, then we will know what all these magical invisible things are!

Google standard theory of the universe, it leads you to the standard model which is derived from relativity. What exactly were you arguing again?


LOl Google eh...? It's clear you don't seem to know the difference between the "Standard model" VS "theory of relativity"....

I'm not arguing, I'm just stating there is a theory of relativity (which describes large scale pshysics/macro ) and there is the standard model (which descibes physics at very small scales: particles)
Google that!

These 2 theories are now not compatible with each other (unless you introduce an 11th dimension), if you don't know the difference between those 2 conflicting models/theories , then it's pointless to debate/argue about it.


Yikes! You think science is stagnant or something? Are you unable to keep up with the pace of scientific research or do you disagree that new observations falsify archaic scientific opinion?


Yikes...? FYI it was my way of saying what the OP actually wanted to say........ you know...sarcasm.... Where did i say Science is stagnant?
I voiced the sentiment of the OP: "science is all wrong , and we'dd be better of just "googling" everything ..."

Science is at a wonderful place now, the experiments @ CERN are aimed at finding clues to reconcile the 2 conflicting theories about marco/micro level physics.

If they find what they are looking for, they could come to a theory of everything (which explains all the physics, from macro to micro level) which is exiting

If they don't find anything in the experiments at Cern,.....then that's probably even more exiting for science, cause then they'll have to start anew. which is maybe even more exiting , cause then the universe is even stranger then we could imagine.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Electricity cannot be sustained in free space for light years. Any engineer will tell you that. You're plasma theory is destroyed with simple high school electrical physics.

For a lover of engineers, you sure do not seem to know much about engineering sciences.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by XyZeR
 



No need to rant dude...
Care to show me where in my post did i talk about Einstein.....?
You dragged him in to this, not me...
FYI I was talking about the scientists @ the LHC...


The 'brilliant scientists' you speak of derive their work based on Einsteinian physics. Einstein was wrong, hence all derivative work based on his wrong theories are hardly what I would call brilliant.


LOl Google eh...? It's clear you don't seem to know the difference between the "Standard model" VS "theory of relativity"....

I'm not arguing, I'm just stating there is a theory of relativity (which describes large scale pshysics/macro ) and there is the standard model (which descibes physics at very small scales: particles)
Google that!

These 2 theories are now not compatible with each other (unless you introduce an 11th dimension), if you don't know the difference between those 2 conflicting models/theories , then it's pointless to debate/argue about it.


Isn't that what they're doing though? Introducing invisible dimensions?


Yikes...? FYI it was my way of saying what the OP actually wanted to say........ you know...sarcasm.... Where did i say Science is stagnant?
I voiced the sentiment of the OP: "science is all wrong , and we'dd be better of just "googling" everything ..."


Just as you were being sarcastic, so I was as well. I'm unsure why people have a problem with using google to obtain information about things. Not everyone is a theoretical astrophysicist conducting 30 year studies. Google is a great tool for those who want to know and understand the results of those studies.


Science is at a wonderful place now, the experiments @ CERN are aimed at finding clues to reconcile the 2 conflicting theories about marco/micro level physics.


What? How is science at a wonderful place when it has to invent invisible explanations in which to dismiss observation? Last I heard, invisible explanations was the realm of religion, not science.


If they find what they are looking for, they could come to a theory of everything (which explains all the physics, from macro to micro level) which is exiting

If they don't find anything in the experiments at Cern,.....then that's probably even more exiting for science, cause then they'll have to start anew. which is maybe even more exiting , cause then the universe is even stranger then we could imagine.


Chances are, they won't find what they're looking for. Like all the other multi-million to multi-billion dollar experiments to find all sorts of proposed invisible things required to keep Ensteinian physics afloat amidst a sea of observations that defy it.

[edit on 20-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Everything you said, without a doubt, is worthless. Because we have observed forces from invisible dimensions interacting on this one.

news.discovery.com...



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Oke i get it now, my mistake....you're clearly smarter then Einstein himself.
(just kidding)

Where do you get your Einstein fixation from anyway?
Did I at any point in my post say Einstein theories are flawless...?
Offcourse I didn't, you just presumed(wrongly). I actually agree with you!


Last I heard, invisible explanations was the realm of religion, not science.


Let me guess you googled that ?


Last i heard, science thrives on trying to discover and explain how things work... If we don't know how something works, we keep searching....even if that means dismissing previous theories ....back to the drawing board they say. It's he starting point of science, and

Here, go watch some Brain Cox BBC horizon documentaries
Beats a google search anyday. He explains it al so well(and yes even he questions if Einsteins's theories are valid.)



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by sirnex
 


Everything you said, without a doubt, is worthless. Because we have observed forces from invisible dimensions interacting on this one.

news.discovery.com...


Your joking right? Please tell me that's a sick twisted mind numbing neuron destroying joke!


Scientists have no idea what's tugging at the known world,


But they think it might be an invisible other universe!

Talk about contradictory statement of the month.

We don't know what it is, but it's another universe, bazinga!

Couldn't possibly be at all indicative of a much larger universe than what our telescopes can see, you know... with them being able to see only so far right now and all.

Wouldn't Occam' Razor have a say in this? A larger than we can currently detect universe is a much simpler answer than an infinite amount of invisible universes that can never be detected. Wouldn't you agree, or you of the religious sect of science that believes in invisible explanations?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by XyZeR
 



Yeah, those pesky brilliant scientist, and their whacky experiments and theories... when they could all just google it like you... and then make an OP as ridiculous as yours.


Yea, Einstein was so brilliant that he plagiarized relativity from Lorentz, took out the aether and gave us a theory that has produced nothing but invisible explanations to describe the universe. First we needed dark matter to explain away Einsteins wrong prediction of the universes mass, then even dark matter wasn't enough, so we invented dark energy.


Stole relativity from Lorentz? Are you serious? Einstein credits Lorentz in and his version is modified from lorentz relativity.

Einstein and Lorentz were not enimies. Einstein looked to Lorentz as a teacher and mentor.

Seriously check on things before you brey like an ass


If you knew a damn thing about history youd note that Poincare' was actually leading the relativity movement and presented work on the subject before anyone else.

So if anyone got robbed it was Poincare by the entire relativity community. Do some research. . . .Or is that to much to ask


[edit on 20-5-2010 by constantwonder]



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by XyZeR
 



Oke i get it now, my mistake....you're clearly smarter then Einstein himself.
(just kidding)


Damn right, I've got the power of google behind me!



Where do you get your Einstein fixation from anyway?
Did I at any point in my post say Einstein theories are flawless...?
Offcourse I didn't, you just presumed(wrongly). I actually agree with you!


I know you didn't explicitly mention him, but most of science today is based off his ridiculous theories of rubber sheets and bowling balls and multidimensional realities. I just don't like invisible made up explanations, same reason I dislike religion.


Let me guess you googled that ?


No, that one I yahoo'ed instead.


Last i heard, science thrives on trying to discover and explain how things work... If we don't know how something works, we keep searching....even if that means dismissing previous theories ....back to the drawing board they say. It's he starting point of science, and


From the looks of it, it more appears that science is trying to discover how to hang onto an archaic physics model. With newer research and discoveries indicating the strong possibility of Einstein being wrong, why are they trying so hard to come up with invisible unfalsifiable entities to hang onto it?


Here, go watch some Brain Cox BBC horizon documentaries
Beats a google search anyday. He explains it al so well(and yes even he questions if Einsteins's theories are valid.)



DUDE! I love Horizon! I've tried getting my wife to watch a couple, she's OK with a few of the shows, but the one's on space related material she can't stand. The one on longevity was pretty damn cool!



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 



Stole relativity from Lorentz? Are you serious? Einstein credits Lorentz in his paper and his version is modified from lorentz relativity.

Einstein and Lorentz were not enimies. Einstein looked to Lorentz as a teacher and mentor.

Seriously check on things before you brey like an ass


Well, used it but took out the aether and ended up with a whole host of required unfalsifiable invisible explanations to compensate.


If you knew a damn thing about history youd note that Poincare' was actually leading the relativity movement and presented work on the subject before anyone else.


Actually, it was developed even earlier than that. But hey, what do I know? I don't bother learning much of anything, I should just blindly believe in invisible explanations like a good boy.


So if anyone got robbed it was Poincare by the entire relativity community. Do some research. . . .Or is that to much to ask


No, not too much at all, may I add heeding one's own advice?



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


The energy required for that movement... Does not exist within the universe.

Ergo, Everything you said, in totality, is worthless. We have observed inter-dimensional forces.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by sirnex
 


The energy required for that movement... Does not exist within the universe.

Ergo, Everything you said, in totality, is worthless. We have observed inter-dimensional forces.


Again, please tell me your joking.

They say that they don't know and do know in the same breath. You don't see the hypocrisy there? Or do you just want to believe in sci-fi concepts like other universes?

We have no clue as to the true extent of the universe or the totality of reality. Your assuming that what we see is all that exists and that anything beyond the scope of current technology must invariably mean super duper magical universes tugging at ours.

That's like wishing really hard that the Earth is the center of the universe and humanity is the epiphany of creation.

Now THAT is truly worthless and ignorant.



posted on May, 20 2010 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Are you joking? The energy required to move that much for that amount of time is amazing. You need a constant energy source that continually re-enforced the vector which pushes them in that direction. IE< a battery. Maybe you know more than me, but is there some magic batter floating around out there to power it all the size of a small universe?


Also, for the record, antimatter exists, and recent tests have shown the universe favors matter. ERGO, they ARE right, you ARE wrong.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by sirnex
 


Are you joking? The energy required to move that much for that amount of time is amazing. You need a constant energy source that continually re-enforced the vector which pushes them in that direction. IE< a battery. Maybe you know more than me, but is there some magic batter floating around out there to power it all the size of a small universe?


Also, for the record, antimatter exists, and recent tests have shown the universe favors matter. ERGO, they ARE right, you ARE wrong.


Again, please tell me your joking.

They say that they don't know and do know in the same breath. You don't see the hypocrisy there? Or do you just want to believe in sci-fi concepts like other universes?


WTF are you talking about? What keeps the planets in motion around the sun? What keeps the solar systems in motion around the galaxy? What keeps groups of galaxies rotating around each other?

Gravity perhaps?

Why would we need a different means of force? Where in the hell are you getting that?

I see nothing indicative of another universe from a contradictory statement. Our technology is infantile, primitive and useless to fully describe the extent of our universe and how it got here. You would have to be an arrogant delusional moron to think we can figure it all out by inventing invisible explanations.

The more simpler answers is a vaster universe than our baby toys can currently see, there is no reason to suspect magical universes exerting magical unknown 'dark flows' on a minuscule fraction of what is observable.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by sirnex]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


you may not know this, but force lessons away from the source of the force. That is why we look into new sources of force. Gravity does not go between galaxies. Hence Dark matter. Dark matter amplifies it.


Same thing for the electric sun folks. Electricity does not go that far. Hence gravity.

hence why you feel there is a contradiction, but there really is none. Dark matter cannot amplify gravity THAT much between all those galaxies. Hence inter-dimensional forces.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by sirnex
 


you may not know this, but force lessons away from the source of the force. That is why we look into new sources of force. Gravity does not go between galaxies. Hence Dark matter. Dark matter amplifies it.


Same thing for the electric sun folks. Electricity does not go that far. Hence gravity.

hence why you feel there is a contradiction, but there really is none. Dark matter cannot amplify gravity THAT much between all those galaxies. Hence inter-dimensional forces.

[edit on 21-5-2010 by Gorman91]


Here's a neat task for you.

Back all that up with experimentally and observably proven peer reviewed research.

What they said was contradictory. Contradictions don't make thing's real regardless of personal opinion. You can't say I don't know and I do know and then run off on tangent about unfalsifiable invisible universes.

Point of fact is, none of those thing's have been proven and so it stands to reason that this minuscule fraction of galaxies in the observable universe being tugged by something out of visible range is more indicative of a larger structure to the universe. I refuse to throw out Occam' Razor on account that some people want to believe in invisible explanations.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
What do you know indeed.

Did you know Lorentz "stole is invariance equation from maxwell?

Voight derived the "lorentz transformation" 20 years before Lorentz.

Damn that Lorentz and his thievery.

It's funny you know to read you all bashing Einstein for stealing work from Lorentz when Lorentz got his work from Maxwell Poincare and Voight.

It's also funny that you say we should stop using such an old model and replace it with an equally old Lorentzian model.

Science builds on previously gained knowledge. Every scientist ever works on ideas of his predecessors. It's not stealing it is the way science is done. Unless you just believe in the "any one man" can figure it out for himself.



No one here ever claimed Einstein was 100 percent right. We've merely pointed out that Lorentz was no more right and that relativity has alot more evidence in favor of it than the Electric Model.



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by constantwonder
 



relativity has alot more evidence in favor of it than the Electric Model.


Well sure, so long as we invent invisible unfalsifiable things that the EU model can readily account for, then your 100% right.

Unfortunately, I leave invisible explanations to religion, not science.






top topics



 
54
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join