It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# When will Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity be debunked and what will replace it (speculative)?

page: 5
1
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Confusion42

Wow, you really know nothing about science. Dont assune i dont either.
Check it out:

I shows wxactly what i said.
You are obviously on a first grade level in science.
I get back to the second part, when i light of the video, you disprove what i wrote.

All that the video tries to claim is that for small scale things, there's an expanded version of e=mc^2 ,,,,

How does the video debunk anything?

Furthermore, who are the people in the video?

Meanwhile, here is some proof of e=mc^2 from 10 of the top physicists in the field.

Source: NOVA

This one might deal with something that the video was talking about.

Experimental Physicist
Columbia University

E = mc2 is a very fundamental statement about the idea of what mass is, and that mass can be equivalent to energy. And we can actually convert mass into energy. But the thing that I wanted to say is that E = mc2 is not the whole of the equation that Einstein wrote down. And it's worth talking about what the whole equation looks like, because it's very related to what kind of research I actually do. The research that I do is on a particle called the neutrino. And for a long time we thought that neutrinos were massless particles. And when I started, my sister said how is it possible that a particle can be massless? Because when she thinks about a particle she thinks about a little speck of dust or something like that. Whereas when I think about a particle I think about a little packet of energy coming out of this equation from Einstein, E = mc2. And, in fact, the whole equation is E is equal to mc2, the amount of energy the particle would have if it was sitting still, plus the extra energy that it would have if it has any motion. And if you think about it in that equation, if you now say E is equal to mc2 plus this energy of motion, you could set the mass equal to zero and you still have energy. And so as far as a particle physicist is concerned, there's still a particle there. It's just a particle that can't ever stop. It always has energy of motion. It's always going the speed of light. So for me there's a lot more to the equation than E = mc2. It matters a lot to my field.

Frank Wilczek Theoretical Physicist MIT E = mc2 famously suggests the idea that you can get a lot of energy out of a small amount of mass. But that's not what Einstein had in mind, really, and you won't find that equation in the original paper. The way he wrote it was M = e/c2 and the original paper had a title that was a question, which was, "Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy content?" So right from the beginning Einstein was thinking about the question of could you explain mass in terms of energy. It turned out that the realization of that vision, the understanding of how not only a little bit of mass but most of the mass, 90 percent or 95 percent of the mass of matter as we know it, comes from energy. We build it up out of massless gluons and almost massless quarks, producing mass from pure energy. That's the deeper vision.

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

I guess you have to rationalize your hallucinations, right?
I never said the full equation was debunked, in fact i said the opposite.
Just because something is good for small scale, doesnt mean there is not a more precise formula.
We use newton in the world because of it. It fine for this world, but it is not the most correct.
Excatl what i said.
Now quote me where i said the full formula is debunked or hallucinate on. In that case this is not a conversation, but you are being judge, jury, and executionar without listing to a word i say.
You are in effect slandering me, you are putting words in my mouth, and you are asking me to disprove something i didnt say. Wow, you truly are emotional over this.
edit on 22-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:51 AM

Di I wite debunked? Are you even addressing this to me? If you want to go to space, you will not use newtonian physics will you know? If you would, back to earth you would plop. May eintein physics. Why is this such a hard concept for people to understand? Nothing is still in science and the universe. Nothing is eternal. What the hell is wrong with speculating? It called creative thinking. Try it.

Um, yea... Newtonian physics is what was used to get to the moon and such.

Are you a freaggin 5 year old kid with the "get ready to get sued?" IMAO who the hell are you to limit my free speech?Es

Again, who THE HELL are you to limit my free speech?

If anything, it's you who should be sued. Harassment (threats), conspiracy to rob one of their constitutional free speech rights, etc.

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

Yeah newton pshyics for calculation of heavenly bodies and such.
Sure.
Back to the school bench you go.
I am sure you also use euclid maths for heavanly bidies right?

Newton is the ONE RESPONSIBLE for Orbital Mechanics.

Orbital mechanics, also called flight mechanics, is the study of the motions of artificial satellites and space vehicles moving under the influence of forces such as gravity, atmospheric drag, thrust, etc. Orbital mechanics is a modern offshoot of celestial mechanics which is the study of the motions of natural celestial bodies such as the moon and planets. The root of orbital mechanics can be traced back to the 17th century when mathematician Isaac Newton (1642-1727) put forward his laws of motion and formulated his law of universal gravitation. The engineering applications of orbital mechanics include ascent trajectories, reentry and landing, rendezvous computations, and lunar and interplanetary trajectories.

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:54 AM

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Confusion42

Wow, you really know nothing about science. Dont assune i dont either.
Check it out:

I shows wxactly what i said.
You are obviously on a first grade level in science.
I get back to the second part, when i light of the video, you disprove what i wrote.

All that the video tries to claim is that for small scale things, there's an expanded version of e=mc^2 ,,,,

How does the video debunk anything?

Furthermore, who are the people in the video?

Meanwhile, here is some proof of e=mc^2 from 10 of the top physicists in the field.

Source: NOVA

This one might deal with something that the video was talking about.

Experimental Physicist
Columbia University

E = mc2 is a very fundamental statement about the idea of what mass is, and that mass can be equivalent to energy. And we can actually convert mass into energy. But the thing that I wanted to say is that E = mc2 is not the whole of the equation that Einstein wrote down. And it's worth talking about what the whole equation looks like, because it's very related to what kind of research I actually do. The research that I do is on a particle called the neutrino. And for a long time we thought that neutrinos were massless particles. And when I started, my sister said how is it possible that a particle can be massless? Because when she thinks about a particle she thinks about a little speck of dust or something like that. Whereas when I think about a particle I think about a little packet of energy coming out of this equation from Einstein, E = mc2. And, in fact, the whole equation is E is equal to mc2, the amount of energy the particle would have if it was sitting still, plus the extra energy that it would have if it has any motion. And if you think about it in that equation, if you now say E is equal to mc2 plus this energy of motion, you could set the mass equal to zero and you still have energy. And so as far as a particle physicist is concerned, there's still a particle there. It's just a particle that can't ever stop. It always has energy of motion. It's always going the speed of light. So for me there's a lot more to the equation than E = mc2. It matters a lot to my field.

Frank Wilczek Theoretical Physicist MIT E = mc2 famously suggests the idea that you can get a lot of energy out of a small amount of mass. But that's not what Einstein had in mind, really, and you won't find that equation in the original paper. The way he wrote it was M = e/c2 and the original paper had a title that was a question, which was, "Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy content?" So right from the beginning Einstein was thinking about the question of could you explain mass in terms of energy. It turned out that the realization of that vision, the understanding of how not only a little bit of mass but most of the mass, 90 percent or 95 percent of the mass of matter as we know it, comes from energy. We build it up out of massless gluons and almost massless quarks, producing mass from pure energy. That's the deeper vision.

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

I guess you have to rationalize your hallucinations, right?
I never said the full equation was debunked, in fact i said the opposite.
Just because something is good for small scale, doesnt mean there is not a more precise formula.
We use newton in the world because of it. It fine for this world, but it is not the most correct.
Excatl what i said.
Now quote me where i said the full formula is debunked or hallucinate on. In that case this is not a conversation, but you are being judge, jury, and executionar without listing to a word i say.
You are in effect slandering me, you are putting words in my mouth, and you are asking me to disprove something i didnt say. Wow, you truly are emotional over this.
edit on 22-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

Excuse me?

Are you trolling?

I will provide MULTIPLE quotes. In fact, these quotes are just from reading the first 3/4 of the first page of this thread!

E=mc2 has already been debunked. It is not even the full equation. The full equation has not been debunked you are right.

Maybe in a few years, maybe in a hundred, but even the sacred cow of physics Einstein will be debunked.

I am 100% sure it will get debunked.

But it will be debunked sooner or latter. Believing otherwise is just religion. And arrogant at that.

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:57 AM

Originally posted by BBalazs
Yeah.
Doubt i will hear from confusion after he watched the video.
It is now a troll free area.
Video proves what i have written.
It is not an oxymoron.
This thread liberated from religous people!
This one, i say:

Dont forget.
I know words.
I know what i say.
I don loose the plot.
You may debate me, but if you do it with emotions ou will always loose.
I am superior to emotional debaters, as my thinkig is superior.
So back the einstien church...

I am agnostic. I am not religious. Actually, I am active on the origins forum, debating against creationists.....

I am not being emotional. You are.

Any rational person would agree that saying "Imma sue you!" to a person on an online forum, for expressing his OPINION, is the one that is emotional....

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:59 AM

Originally posted by Confusion42

Di I wite debunked? Are you even addressing this to me? If you want to go to space, you will not use newtonian physics will you know? If you would, back to earth you would plop. May eintein physics. Why is this such a hard concept for people to understand? Nothing is still in science and the universe. Nothing is eternal. What the hell is wrong with speculating? It called creative thinking. Try it.

Um, yea... Newtonian physics is what was used to get to the moon and such.

Are you a freaggin 5 year old kid with the "get ready to get sued?" IMAO who the hell are you to limit my free speech?Es

Again, who THE HELL are you to limit my free speech?

If anything, it's you who should be sued. Harassment (threats), conspiracy to rob one of their constitutional free speech rights, etc.

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

Yeah newton pshyics for calculation of heavenly bodies and such.
Sure.
Back to the school bench you go.
I am sure you also use euclid maths for heavanly bidies right?

Newton is the ONE RESPONSIBLE for Orbital Mechanics.

Orbital mechanics, also called flight mechanics, is the study of the motions of artificial satellites and space vehicles moving under the influence of forces such as gravity, atmospheric drag, thrust, etc. Orbital mechanics is a modern offshoot of celestial mechanics which is the study of the motions of natural celestial bodies such as the moon and planets. The root of orbital mechanics can be traced back to the 17th century when mathematician Isaac Newton (1642-1727) put forward his laws of motion and formulated his law of universal gravitation. The engineering applications of orbital mechanics include ascent trajectories, reentry and landing, rendezvous computations, and lunar and interplanetary trajectories.

So you will not quote me, right?

This is debunked:
debunkedpast participle, past tense of de·bunk (Verb)
Verb:
Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).

So if a more correct, precise idea comes along, in essence the folowing idea is debunked.
It is false. It is just a matter of convienence we use newton, we could use einstein mAths for everyday things.
Technically it is more correct.
But you seem to have a problem with debunked, not me.
Fine, if debunk brings forth such emotions for you, use this instead: corrected.
Now quote me.
Have a conversation with me.
Or leave.
The above reference just validated my point about debunking/ correction.
I thi k you are projecting. Just because others are idiots, doesnt mean i am, i know exactly what i am talking about.
1. Leave
2. Quote me on enstein and equation
3. Have a conversation

You have no other choices, as you are argueing semantics, and i have even suggestes another word, you may be more comfertable with.

Btw, is your fit now over?

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:02 AM

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Confusion42

Di I wite debunked? Are you even addressing this to me? If you want to go to space, you will not use newtonian physics will you know? If you would, back to earth you would plop. May eintein physics. Why is this such a hard concept for people to understand? Nothing is still in science and the universe. Nothing is eternal. What the hell is wrong with speculating? It called creative thinking. Try it.

Um, yea... Newtonian physics is what was used to get to the moon and such.

Are you a freaggin 5 year old kid with the "get ready to get sued?" IMAO who the hell are you to limit my free speech?Es

Again, who THE HELL are you to limit my free speech?

If anything, it's you who should be sued. Harassment (threats), conspiracy to rob one of their constitutional free speech rights, etc.

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

Yeah newton pshyics for calculation of heavenly bodies and such.
Sure.
Back to the school bench you go.
I am sure you also use euclid maths for heavanly bidies right?

Newton is the ONE RESPONSIBLE for Orbital Mechanics.

Orbital mechanics, also called flight mechanics, is the study of the motions of artificial satellites and space vehicles moving under the influence of forces such as gravity, atmospheric drag, thrust, etc. Orbital mechanics is a modern offshoot of celestial mechanics which is the study of the motions of natural celestial bodies such as the moon and planets. The root of orbital mechanics can be traced back to the 17th century when mathematician Isaac Newton (1642-1727) put forward his laws of motion and formulated his law of universal gravitation. The engineering applications of orbital mechanics include ascent trajectories, reentry and landing, rendezvous computations, and lunar and interplanetary trajectories.

So you will not quote me, right?

This is debunked:
debunkedpast participle, past tense of de·bunk (Verb)
Verb:
Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).

So if a more correct, precise idea comes along, in essence the folowing idea is debunked.
It is false. It is just a matter of convienence we use newton, we could use einstein mAths for everyday things.
Technically it is more correct.
But you seem to have a problem with debunked, not me.
Fine, if debunk brings forth such emotions for you, use this instead: corrected.
Now quote me.
Have a conversation with me.
Or leave.
The above reference just validated my point about debunking/ correction.
I thi k you are projecting. Just because others are idiots, doesnt mean i am, i know exactly what i am talking about.
1. Leave
2. Quote me on enstein and equation
3. Have a conversation

You have no other choices, as you are argueing semantics, and i have even suggestes another word, you may be more comfertable with.

Btw, is your fit now over?

You are a LIER!

You are trying to SLANDER ME!

I JUST QUOTED YOU. Can you read?!?!?!?!!

Here is what I posted, AGAIN!!!!

________________

Excuse me?

Are you trolling?

I will provide MULTIPLE quotes. In fact, these quotes are just from reading the first 3/4 of the first page of this thread!

E=mc2 has already been debunked. It is not even the full equation. The full equation has not been debunked you are right.

Maybe in a few years, maybe in a hundred, but even the sacred cow of physics Einstein will be debunked.

I am 100% sure it will get debunked.

But it will be debunked sooner or latter. Believing otherwise is just religion. And arrogant at that.

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:05 AM

So for your puny mind (cheap, but it definTly seems to be the case, see all above), i will rephrase the question so you to can grasp it without emotions:
When will ensteins special theory of relativity be corrected and what will take its place (speculative)?

Are you following now, or are you going to get enraged, mad again?
Are you going to put words in my mouth and hallucinate away without a care as to what is said, or are you going to go from insult and trying to teach me science (which i seem to know better then you)?
Or are you going to go and cry to the moderator because you had a sissy fit and have now been exposed?

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:09 AM

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Confusion42

Di I wite debunked? Are you even addressing this to me? If you want to go to space, you will not use newtonian physics will you know? If you would, back to earth you would plop. May eintein physics. Why is this such a hard concept for people to understand? Nothing is still in science and the universe. Nothing is eternal. What the hell is wrong with speculating? It called creative thinking. Try it.

Um, yea... Newtonian physics is what was used to get to the moon and such.

Are you a freaggin 5 year old kid with the "get ready to get sued?" IMAO who the hell are you to limit my free speech?Es

Again, who THE HELL are you to limit my free speech?

If anything, it's you who should be sued. Harassment (threats), conspiracy to rob one of their constitutional free speech rights, etc.

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

Yeah newton pshyics for calculation of heavenly bodies and such.
Sure.
Back to the school bench you go.
I am sure you also use euclid maths for heavanly bidies right?

Newton is the ONE RESPONSIBLE for Orbital Mechanics.

Orbital mechanics, also called flight mechanics, is the study of the motions of artificial satellites and space vehicles moving under the influence of forces such as gravity, atmospheric drag, thrust, etc. Orbital mechanics is a modern offshoot of celestial mechanics which is the study of the motions of natural celestial bodies such as the moon and planets. The root of orbital mechanics can be traced back to the 17th century when mathematician Isaac Newton (1642-1727) put forward his laws of motion and formulated his law of universal gravitation. The engineering applications of orbital mechanics include ascent trajectories, reentry and landing, rendezvous computations, and lunar and interplanetary trajectories.

So you will not quote me, right?

This is debunked:
debunkedpast participle, past tense of de·bunk (Verb)
Verb:
Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).

So if a more correct, precise idea comes along, in essence the folowing idea is debunked.
It is false. It is just a matter of convienence we use newton, we could use einstein mAths for everyday things.
Technically it is more correct.
But you seem to have a problem with debunked, not me.
Fine, if debunk brings forth such emotions for you, use this instead: corrected.
Now quote me.
Have a conversation with me.
Or leave.
The above reference just validated my point about debunking/ correction.
I thi k you are projecting. Just because others are idiots, doesnt mean i am, i know exactly what i am talking about.
1. Leave
2. Quote me on enstein and equation
3. Have a conversation

You have no other choices, as you are argueing semantics, and i have even suggestes another word, you may be more comfertable with.

Btw, is your fit now over?

You are a LIER!

You are trying to SLANDER ME!

I JUST QUOTED YOU. Can you read?!?!?!?!!

Here is what I posted, AGAIN!!!!

________________

Excuse me?

Are you trolling?

I will provide MULTIPLE quotes. In fact, these quotes are just from reading the first 3/4 of the first page of this thread!

E=mc2 has already been debunked. It is not even the full equation. The full equation has not been debunked you are right.

Maybe in a few years, maybe in a hundred, but even the sacred cow of physics Einstein will be debunked.

I am 100% sure it will get debunked.

But it will be debunked sooner or latter. Believing otherwise is just religion. And arrogant at that.

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

You are truly an idiot. Go run to the moderator.
I did not lie, i was precise.
I showed you the video.
And the quote says the full equation is not debunked, so what is your point?
Stick to 1 quote and tell me how it shows i dont know science, otherwise wallow in your ignorance.
Truly, you r the workong definition of close minded.
And now to save fave you spew idiotic things.

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:11 AM

Originally posted by BBalazs

So for your puny mind (cheap, but it definTly seems to be the case, see all above), i will rephrase the question so you to can grasp it without emotions:
When will ensteins special theory of relativity be corrected and what will take its place (speculative)?

Are you following now, or are you going to get enraged, mad again?
Are you going to put words in my mouth and hallucinate away without a care as to what is said, or are you going to go from insult and trying to teach me science (which i seem to know better then you)?
Or are you going to go and cry to the moderator because you had a sissy fit and have now been exposed?

Wow, just wow.

First, I quote you. Than, you ignore the quote, lie that I didn't quote you. Than I quote you, AGAIN.

Now you completely ignore the quotes and switch topics.

Second, I provided proof and evidence that newtonian physics is enough to take us to space (provided link!)...

again, you ignore this.

And now, you are changing things, asking "when will Einstein's theory of Relativity be corrected?"

your thread is, and I am quoting the title, "When will Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity be debunked and what will replace it..."

You switching goal posts.

What is the topic, Einstein being corrected or debunked?
edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:14 AM

It is of my opinion you are delusional.

Or trolling.

You wanted quotes, I gave you quotes.

You can't even address them. I gave you four quotes. You don't address them and say to give you 1 quote.

I gave you four quotes.

Pick a quote if you like.

If your confident, pick all quotes.

You ask me to quote you saying einstein is debunked. You made such a comotion regarding "quote me einstein is debunked."

I give you four quotes, and your answer is "give me one."

Are you serious dude?

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:18 AM

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by BBalazs

So for your puny mind (cheap, but it definTly seems to be the case, see all above), i will rephrase the question so you to can grasp it without emotions:
When will ensteins special theory of relativity be corrected and what will take its place (speculative)?

Are you following now, or are you going to get enraged, mad again?
Are you going to put words in my mouth and hallucinate away without a care as to what is said, or are you going to
Ago from insult and trying to teach me science (which i seem to know better then you)?
Or are you going to go and cry to the moderator because you had a sissy fit and have now been exposed?

Wow, just wow.

First, I quote you. Than, you ignore the quote, lie that I didn't quote you. Than I quote you, AGAIN.

Now you completely ignore the quotes and switch topics.

Second, I provided proof and evidence that newtonian physics is enough to take us to space (provided link!)...

again, you ignore this.

And now, you are changing things, asking "when will Einstein's theory of Relativity be corrected?"

your thread is, and I am quoting the title, "When will Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity be debunked and what will replace it..."

You switching goal posts.

What is the topic, Einstein being corrected or debunked?
edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

Wiw, you are more backward then i though.
Were did i ignore newton?
All i said that there is ammore accurate physics model, hence it is not the most correct, hence it is in essence debunked.
I actually said we use it.
You are projecting things i have never said. You imply i have said them, when i have not.
You are a troll and welcome to leave, if you cannot ponder the possibility or when eisntien will be corrected (just as newton).
As for your proof and quote. Think! What are you trying to say. I said exactly what was said in the video. Do you want to talk to the proffessors because i happen to know them.
I am not switching goalposts.
Only i know what i meant. I showed you the definition of debunking.
You may disagree.
I offered a way for you to saw face.
We can argue scientific though somewhere esle, inc. Meaning kf words, but sxientific though was my major, you may want to know.
But if this will # you up, no cant write it.
Its obvious what i meant, to me.
If you misundertood thats on you!
I dont have to think for you!
You should have asked for clarification then go on all out attack.
You will probably continue spewing for a few pages, because you are emotional.
Be rational and think, my friend.
edit on 22-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:19 AM

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by Amaterasu
So, Ace... You would contend that nothing else could ever describe things better? That We must take on faith that matter bends space-time with no explanation how and why? When there seems to be a better description that explains all the effects - from the apparent time dilation to the bending of light - with nothing taken on faith? And unifying EM and gravity, to boot?

What do you mean by "nothing taken on faith"? And what specifically is this? And what consequences does it predict which are different? And how do you explain how particle accelerators currently work (as everything in them must be designed with relativity in mind)? And how do you explain gravitational lensing? And the observed decay of pulsar periods due to gravitational radiation? And the gravitational redshift?

I mean no foundational premises for which no explanation is given. Subquantum kinetics. The Biefeld-Brown effect. And I am not the mathematician/creator of subquantum kinetics. But there is a book called Subquantum Kinetics that could answer Your further questions.

Are You saying there is no way a better description will ever come along? That Einstein is the be-all and end-all? Progress would fail with all minds so narrow, I would think.

No, Einstein is not the be-all and end-all. To go beyond you need

a) a theory with quantitatively computable consequences
b) data which shows superior agreement with new theory vs old theory in areas
c) non-contradictory with Einstein in areas where other data stands, and internally

Check out subquantum kinetics. I only know layman's descriptions, but it sounds like it's got all that covered.

www.integrityresearchinstitute.org...
spacecollective.org...
starburstfound.org...

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:30 AM

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by BBalazs

So for your puny mind (cheap, but it definTly seems to be the case, see all above), i will rephrase the question so you to can grasp it without emotions:
When will ensteins special theory of relativity be corrected and what will take its place (speculative)?

Are you following now, or are you going to get enraged, mad again?
Are you going to put words in my mouth and hallucinate away without a care as to what is said, or are you going to go from insult and trying to teach me science (which i seem to know better then you)?
Or are you going to go and cry to the moderator because you had a sissy fit and have now been exposed?

Wow, just wow.

First, I quote you. Than, you ignore the quote, lie that I didn't quote you. Than I quote you, AGAIN.

Now you completely ignore the quotes and switch topics.

Second, I provided proof and evidence that newtonian physics is enough to take us to space (provided link!)...

again, you ignore this.

And now, you are changing things, asking "when will Einstein's theory of Relativity be corrected?"

your thread is, and I am quoting the title, "When will Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity be debunked and what will replace it..."

You switching goal posts.

What is the topic, Einstein being corrected or debunked?
edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

Wiw, you are more backward then i though.
Were did i ignore newton?
All i said that there is ammore accurate physics model, hence it is not the most correct, hence it is in essence debunked.
I actually said we use it.
You are projecting things i have never said. You imply i have said them, when i have not.
You are a troll and welcome to leave, if you cannot ponder the possibility or when eisntien will be corrected (just as newton).
As for your proof and quote. Think! What are you trying to say. I said exactly what was said in the video. Do you want to talk to the proffessors because i happen to know them.

So you are saying "hence it is in essence debunked"

Debunked means:

"to expose the sham or falseness of"

..... Are you saying that GPS, which relies on Einstein's theories, are "in essence a sham""

Are you saying that all the experiments regarding Einstein's theories, such as the experiments that proved that time is relative to the observer, are you saying that those theories are "in essence a sham"?

Are you saying that fission and fusion are a "sham"?

Or the countless other practical applications...

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:31 AM
n.
1. The act or process of correcting.
2. Something offered or substituted for a mistake or fault: made corrections in the report.
3.
a. Punishment intended to rehabilitate or improve.
b. corrections The treatment of offenders through a system of penal incarceration, rehabilitation, probation, and parole, or the administrative system by which these are effectuated.
4. An amount or quantity added or subtracted in order to correct.
5. A decline in stock-market activity or prices following a period of increases.

de·bunk/diˈbəNGk/
Verb:
Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).
Reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), esp. by ridicule: "comedy takes delight in debunking heroes".
Synonyms:
Merriam-Webster The Free Dictionary

With debunking you essentiallz debunk the previous idea. It matters not what parts you use from the previous idea.
Want me to give logic examples!?
Come on man, lighten up.
I have not moved the goalpost, you have failed to understand the premise, and are now desperate.
In science correction is just a nice way of saying debunking.
You may argue this to be not true, but then why are you telling me i dont know science?
Ridicolous.
Ever heard of plate tectonics?
Did it debunk the previous theory, or correct it.
Its a matter of viewpoint and politness.
I dont have to be polite about speculation, you however need not take part if a word hurst you, and you get all emotional (words and stones....).
You r jusr demonstrating your ignorance.
You are attacking me, and you have not one point of attack other then sokething hallucinated by you.
Take a break, and come back, and you will see how far off the path you went.

Ps: if einstien is more precise, in essence the prvious idea is more hollow, as einsteins is more accurate.
Sheees.
As for the other wild and idiotic thing s you write, it makes no sense.
You have an issue, but not with me my friend.
edit on 22-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:33 AM

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by BBalazs

So for your puny mind (cheap, but it definTly seems to be the case, see all above), i will rephrase the question so you to can grasp it without emotions:
When will ensteins special theory of relativity be corrected and what will take its place (speculative)?

Are you following now, or are you going to get enraged, mad again?
Are you going to put words in my mouth and hallucinate away without a care as to what is said, or are you going to go from insult and trying to teach me science (which i seem to know better then you)?
Or are you going to go and cry to the moderator because you had a sissy fit and have now been exposed?

Wow, just wow.

First, I quote you. Than, you ignore the quote, lie that I didn't quote you. Than I quote you, AGAIN.

Now you completely ignore the quotes and switch topics.

Second, I provided proof and evidence that newtonian physics is enough to take us to space (provided link!)...

again, you ignore this.

And now, you are changing things, asking "when will Einstein's theory of Relativity be corrected?"

your thread is, and I am quoting the title, "When will Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity be debunked and what will replace it..."

You switching goal posts.

What is the topic, Einstein being corrected or debunked?
edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

Wiw, you are more backward then i though.
Were did i ignore newton?
All i said that there is ammore accurate physics model, hence it is not the most correct, hence it is in essence debunked.
I actually said we use it.
You are projecting things i have never said. You imply i have said them, when i have not.
You are a troll and welcome to leave, if you cannot ponder the possibility or when eisntien will be corrected (just as newton).
As for your proof and quote. Think! What are you trying to say. I said exactly what was said in the video. Do you want to talk to the proffessors because i happen to know them.

So you are saying "hence it is in essence debunked"

Debunked means:

"to expose the sham or falseness of"

..... Are you saying that GPS, which relies on Einstein's theories, are "in essence a sham""

Are you saying that all the experiments regarding Einstein's theories, such as the experiments that proved that time is relative to the observer, are you saying that those theories are "in essence a sham"?

Are you saying that fission and fusion are a "sham"?

Or the countless other practical applications...

No i am not saying that, and i never said that.
Care to hear what i ama say on the subject, or am i not neaded for this conversation?

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:46 AM

Originally posted by BBalazs

n.
1. The act or process of correcting.
2. Something offered or substituted for a mistake or fault: made corrections in the report.
3.
a. Punishment intended to rehabilitate or improve.
b. corrections The treatment of offenders through a system of penal incarceration, rehabilitation, probation, and parole, or the administrative system by which these are effectuated.
4. An amount or quantity added or subtracted in order to correct.
5. A decline in stock-market activity or prices following a period of increases.

de·bunk/diˈbəNGk/
Verb:
Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).
Reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), esp. by ridicule: "comedy takes delight in debunking heroes".
Synonyms:
Merriam-Webster The Free Dictionary

With debunking you essentiallz debunk the previous idea. It matters not what parts you use from the previous idea.
Want me to give logic examples!?
Come on man, lighten up.
I have not moved the goalpost, you have failed to understand the premise, and are now desperate.
In science correction is just a nice way of saying debunking.
You may argue this to be not true, but then why are you telling me i dont know science?
Ridicolous.
Ever heard of plate tectonics?
Did it debunk the previous theory, or correct it.
Its a matter of viewpoint and politness.
I dont have to be polite about speculation, you however need not take part if a word hurst you, and you get all emotional (words and stones....).
You r jusr demonstrating your ignorance.
You are attacking me, and you have not one point of attack other then sokething hallucinated by you.
Take a break, and come back, and you will see how far off the path you went.

There is a HUGE difference between correcting and debunking.

In Einstein's case, where the physicists are going is "adding onto" Einstein. I agree that part (only part) of that may include some correction, but non the less it's still adding onto Einstein.

Are the Wright Brother's plane "debunked" because now they have jet engine planes? Ofcourse not; We have improved on it, but it's still a plane.

In Einstein's case, the theory is simply evolving. Like everything else, evolution...

To say that Einstein's theory is about to be debunked would, by implication through definition, also mean that the theory principles that have been applied to clocks in space that are responsible for GPS must also be "debunked."

There is a huge difference between "debunking" the theories responsible for the use GPS (this would lead to no GPS) and "correcting" the theories, which is just fine-tuning, to make the GPS more accurate...

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:53 AM

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by BBalazs

So for your puny mind (cheap, but it definTly seems to be the case, see all above), i will rephrase the question so you to can grasp it without emotions:
When will ensteins special theory of relativity be corrected and what will take its place (speculative)?

Are you following now, or are you going to get enraged, mad again?
Are you going to put words in my mouth and hallucinate away without a care as to what is said, or are you going to go from insult and trying to teach me science (which i seem to know better then you)?
Or are you going to go and cry to the moderator because you had a sissy fit and have now been exposed?

Wow, just wow.

First, I quote you. Than, you ignore the quote, lie that I didn't quote you. Than I quote you, AGAIN.

Now you completely ignore the quotes and switch topics.

Second, I provided proof and evidence that newtonian physics is enough to take us to space (provided link!)...

again, you ignore this.

And now, you are changing things, asking "when will Einstein's theory of Relativity be corrected?"

your thread is, and I am quoting the title, "When will Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity be debunked and what will replace it..."

You switching goal posts.

What is the topic, Einstein being corrected or debunked?
edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

Wiw, you are more backward then i though.
Were did i ignore newton?
All i said that there is ammore accurate physics model, hence it is not the most correct, hence it is in essence debunked.
I actually said we use it.
You are projecting things i have never said. You imply i have said them, when i have not.
You are a troll and welcome to leave, if you cannot ponder the possibility or when eisntien will be corrected (just as newton).
As for your proof and quote. Think! What are you trying to say. I said exactly what was said in the video. Do you want to talk to the proffessors because i happen to know them.

So you are saying "hence it is in essence debunked"

Debunked means:

"to expose the sham or falseness of"

..... Are you saying that GPS, which relies on Einstein's theories, are "in essence a sham""

Are you saying that all the experiments regarding Einstein's theories, such as the experiments that proved that time is relative to the observer, are you saying that those theories are "in essence a sham"?

Are you saying that fission and fusion are a "sham"?

Or the countless other practical applications...

No i am not saying that, and i never said that.
Care to hear what i ama say on the subject, or am i not neaded for this conversation?

Please explain how if Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity is "debunked," GPS would continue working?

For GPS to be accurate, his theory / equations must be applied to the satellites. If the theory is debunked, and GPS stopped using relativity, than GPS would stop working.

If there are gadgets, and other various practical applications that RELY on Einstein's theory; And you say his theory is debunked, don't you agree that GPS should stop using the theory? And that that would make the GPS stop working.

And wouldn't you agree that if the theory is "debunked," one must also say that time being relative to the observer is also "debunked,"?

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:56 AM

You're going to pick a fight with Relativity over E=MC^2?

... You don't know much about Relativity, do you?

Special Relativity is... fun.

The crux of purist interpretations of Special Relativity is that no preferential reference frame exists in the universe. Lorentz Invariance continues through infinity - meaning that all speed, position, motion, perception, etc is purely relative.

The problem with this is exposed in the simple Twin Paradox:

You have two clocks - A and B. As you know - there is a thing called time dilation. Both clocks are synched. Now... A remains stationary while B zings off at a fraction of the speed of light before returning. B's clock should be running slightly behind A's due to the time dilation induced by motion.

However... according to B, A was in motion (relative to B). Thus, when B rejoins A; B would expect A's clock to be running slower.

Common sense takes over, and one says: "But B should know he was the one who was in motion, and he'd be silly to expect otherwise." That's true.

However, in a similar instance, we have four bodies: A, B; 1, 2. A and B are both planets. 1 and 2 are asteroids. 1 and 2 are both approaching each other at 500 meters per second, relatively. However, A and B are both observing the impending collision. (We can imagine a number of different vectors and positions for this setup, but we'll just assume the velocities are all derived from angular measurement equivalents). A observes 1 moving at 20 kilometers per second away from itself, and 2 moving at 480 kilometers per second (toward itself) with the two on a collision vector. B; however, observes 1 as moving 200 kilometers per second toward itself and 2 moving 300 kilometers away from itself.

When the two asteroids collide, which will hit the other with the greatest amount of energy?

The solution is unknowable. We can extrapolate the values out all we want to. The problem, however, is that both A and B will make separate predictions about the behavior of the asteroids before they collide. Yet, both cannot be true.

This also drives a stake into the concept of relative simultaneity (the crux of "if you go faster than light, you can go back in time!") - if the reference frames of both A and B are equally valid for determining the sequence and/or outcome of events, then so, too; must be the relative velocities of each object in the collision.

Now, people will be quick to say: "but relative to the SUN!" .... Who said there was a Sun in this setup? These are all inertial reference frames traveling through the galactic void, for all intents and purposes. Are you going to suggest that we start referencing compound masses that are thousands of light-years away?

Common sense says that there must be a proper frame of reference for resolving the physics.

We commonly deffer this to the Sun - or some other locally dominant body. The velocities commonly applied to Relativity are never at such extremes as to see substantial deviance from the projected results using such methods.

The problem with using this to substantiate Special Relativity and the absence of a universal reference frame is that one is, effectively, establishing a locally preferred frame of reference as the math of the situation requires. That, however, is not consistent with pure relativity.

Further, and even more troubling, is the implication that inertial frames of reference separated by massive amounts of space actually govern the physics of objects in a nonlocal manner. According to Special Relativity; A cannot know 1 and 2 have collided until the light from the event reaches them (after the event has already taken place). Nor can B. Neither A or B can know the outcome of the collision until after it happens. Even inserting C - the sun, doesn't change the fact that C cannot know the outcome of the collision until after the event.

How, then, would 1 and 2 be able to reconcile their frames of reference with A, B, and C to establish the outcome of the collision?

One way is to postulate there is a non-local link between all matter used to instantly reconcile frames of reference. .... Which is no different than establishing a universal frame of reference, functionally (only it doesn't require a mystical non-local link; only that space and the material in it contain information amounting to an absolute value).

Beyond that - we get into speculations on additional effects of gravity and run into even more problems when presented with the idea of superluinous objects than mere time-travel paradoxes.

... If you're going to challenge Relativity - at least give them a little run for their money.

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:02 AM

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by BBalazs

n.
1. The act or process of correcting.
2. Something offered or substituted for a mistake or fault: made corrections in the report.
3.
a. Punishment intended to rehabilitate or improve.
b. corrections The treatment of offenders through a system of penal incarceration, rehabilitation, probation, and parole, or the administrative system by which these are effectuated.
4. An amount or quantity added or subtracted in order to correct.
5. A decline in stock-market activity or prices following a period of increases.

de·bunk/diˈbəNGk/
Verb:
Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief).
Reduce the inflated reputation of (someone), esp. by ridicule: "comedy takes delight in debunking heroes".
Synonyms:
Merriam-Webster The Free Dictionary

With debunking you essentiallz debunk the previous idea. It matters not what parts you use from the previous idea.
Want me to give logic examples!?
Come on man, lighten up.
I have not moved the goalpost, you have failed to understand the premise, and are now desperate.
In science correction is just a nice way of saying debunking.
You may argue this to be not true, but then why are you telling me i dont know science?
Ridicolous.
Ever heard of plate tectonics?
Did it debunk the previous theory, or correct it.
Its a matter of viewpoint and politness.
I dont have to be polite about speculation, you however need not take part if a word hurst you, and you get all emotional (words and stones....).
You r jusr demonstrating your ignorance.
You are attacking me, and you have not one point of attack other then sokething hallucinated by you.
Take a break, and come back, and you will see how far off the path you went.

There is a HUGE difference between correcting and debunking.

In Einstein's case, where the physicists are going is "adding onto" Einstein. I agree that part (only part) of that may include some correction, but non the less it's still adding onto Einstein.

Are the Wright Brother's plane "debunked" because now they have jet engine planes? Ofcourse not; We have improved on it, but it's still a plane.

In Einstein's case, the theory is simply evolving. Like everything else, evolution...

To say that Einstein's theory is about to be debunked would, by implication through definition, also mean that the theory principles that have been applied to clocks in space that are responsible for GPS must also be "debunked."

There is a huge difference between "debunking" the theories responsible for the use GPS (this would lead to no GPS) and "correcting" the theories, which is just fine-tuning, to make the GPS more accurate...

That is a semantics arguement.
I have made my views clear.
The fact that you need his much to explain your version should sufrice, per occams razor of your speculation and emotional being.
I amnot here to argue semantics.
Show me where i showed an unclear understanding of science, and get over sementics, will ya?
I am not going to explain again.
You understand wath i wrote perfectly.
This is not philosophy.
It is now clear to you what i have asked.
If you cant do that, explain your viewpoint to the flat earh people a thousand years ago.
Science is a spiritual journey to understand our surroundings.
Ideas are proposed, some fail, some are built upon.
Call it correction or debunking its up to you.
Show me where i have said newton is a sham.
You are not the kbject of my laughter.
Line after line sou accuse, rather then ask.
Line after line, you claim things inhave not said.
Line after line you ask me to disprove what i have not said.
I have proved all i said thusfar as true.
Your misunderstanding is not my concern.
You can evangalise elsewhere, i hae perfect understaning of science and black swans (you really should read it).
Now sou go into semantics.
I will play your idioitic game, as your squirming entertains me so.
If cern results are confirmed, what impliactions does it have for physics?
Dont get into our physics being used after that, we all know its the case.
Maybe it will be built upon.
Maybe a new path will be found.
A lot of things can happen, but none of us KNOW the answer.
You are just rsint to force sour arrogance and ingorance on me.
This is a speculative thread as indicated.
Semanics!?
Really?!
Even hen sour wrong.
Get over it, lighten up, get a life. Read a book: black swans for examples or history or sdientific though.
And come back when you cool off.

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:19 AM
Btw confusion.
Are you interested in this topic or semantics?
Are you intersted in getting to know other viewpoints?
Or are you just intersted in promoting your false assumptions, as a religious zealot.
When will you quote me on something unscientific that i said, besides your semantics?
I would win in a court kf law to use debunked. You do no that, righ?
Especially sincs i clarified my position for you, so egen you may be able to understand?
Btw how many mathematical models are there? What maths i used in school? What marhs is used in higher physics?
You may argue, its building upon, but since one is more precise then the other, i would argue it is a different system altoghether.
Even a small correction, revision results in another sytems
If this wasnt the case, we would not need to have different forms of math.
Is this something thats hard to grasp for you?
You are lost on an aromic level, you fail to see how a sma change can change to whole system and way of thinking.
And you tell me i dont know science, ahen in fact you have jsut demoszrated your ignorance.
You say a small change is no change at all.

In context a small change is HUGE!
Argue against that. This should be entertaining enough.
This my friend is ignorance defined.

Here is ignorance:
ig·no·rance
[ig-ner-uhns]
- noun 1. the state or fact of being ignorant; lack of knowledge, learning, information, etc.

You are argueing that even a small change winnot lead to a totally different model.
Its ridicolous.
No wonder you are nkw argueing semantics.
But even then, a small change in the model leads to very differnt results.
Very different result = very different viewpoints.
You may call a paradigm a correction (although now you are argueing against this word also), but really it is a paradigm.
If the other sytsem was lerfect or just built upon there would be NO paradigm, just expansion of knowledeg.
How old are again? 15?!
It sure seems that you are unaware of eve. The most basic concepts.
edit on 22-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

1