Just when you thought breaking light speed was impossible (1 Viewer)

[conquer]

I hate to break it to you but there is a a lot experimental proof going for his general relativity.


Say what you will of special relativity but his general relativity theory has experimental or observational proof. I am just a lowly ex research chemist but we had to learn general relativity pretty damn well because we had to understand spectrography cold. Newton could never explain Mercury's funcky orbit and voila, Einstein's computations explained them.

Use the same computation with the other planets and Einstein's formulas will fail miserably. Even worst, Einstein added an imaginary physical time to his formulas, and before Einstein the same and exact computation was obtained by adding an imaginary twin planet to Mercury.

Don't forget Sir A. S. Eddington's experimental confirmation that a ray of light is deflected by a gravitational field during his trip to the North Pole for the eclipse of 1919..

(The expeditions in 1919 went to South America and South Africa. There is an expedition which went to the State of washington in 1918 which concluded that thre was not such deflection of images of stars in the solar eclipse. This conclusion flamed up Eddington who desperately asked to make other expeditions to verify again the predictions of Einstein.)

There is plenty evidence that Eddington faked the results, lots of historians of science agree that the result given from the expeditions in 1919 was a hoax. Read for example Einstein's Luck by John Waller. In his book the hoax is presented very clearly. Waller, however, tries later in the following chapters to justify that relativity was correct in other experiments.

I can tell you that in the "other" experiments are lots of misunderstandings and possible "made in purpose" hoaxes as well.

(Look at the primary data) Einstein predicted that in a gravitational field spectral lines of substances would be shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. This has been confirmed by observation of light from white dwarf stars. Then there have been tons of stuff obtained in recent years from precision measurements using artificial satellites and the Viking lander on Mars, and from detailed observations of pulsars etc etc. I like my emperic data too, and every time I look around, his general relativity seems to be validated all the time. I don't claim to be an expert on special relativity since we chemists never had much use for it, but, jeesh, cut him a break. He was thinking up this stuff at the turn of the century they were still binding us women's feet in china!

Einstein was a copyst, he copied others ideas when he was a clerck in the patent office. He was a smart guy instead of a genius, and he managed to take credit of others's discoveries. Actually Einstein never experimented anything, he copied from others. For example, the idea assumed to him that speed might increase mass was an already made experiment years before Einstein wrote it. Amanzigly, he released the statement as his theorical prediction, when the increasing mass of speeding objects was an already observed fact long before his words.

And no I don't put him on any kind of pedastal since he could never accept the validity of quantum mechanics even though he ushered that field in with his famous photoelectric experiment!

That famous photoelectric experiment has presented lots of doubts as well, even when the propaganda about it claims that it was successful. A review made about the results and the theorical explanation showed lots of failures from the theorical part.

Einstein is the sure loser.

The goverment must create and enforce a regulation for theorical scientists to release their assumptions with the clear understanding that their explanations about a phenomena are not factual. Theorists must make clear in their statements that their words are educated guesses. We must protect our children and future generations from this kind of "intellectual predators" who are abusing of the trust of the people in order to make profit.

 

[conquer]

Although I have to admit, I always thought Eddington above was a little bit of a political kiss up and people criticise his methodology but it doesn't matter since modern cosmology uses the bending of the images of distant galaxies around large intermediate galaxies to create "double" images as a well established tool in deep-space surveys. :mrgreen: (And no I didn't get that from my past chemistry training, my brother used to be a Princeton physicist.)

There is not such thing of "gravitational lenses."

Einstein predicted that the displacement of the images due to the gravitational effects would be the lowest, this is to say, it won't be notorious to the naked eye.

The problems found in 1919 were that the plates (photographs) showed controversial results.

You must know that Newton predicted as well the same displavcement of images due to gravitational causes. The idea of this displacement has been also credited only to Einstein and such is false. Newton predicted it first.

Well, as the deflection was about 0.8 and 1.9 seconds of arc, which cannot be noticed by naked eyes by any means, how in the world there is a claim that the deflection of images of stars behind other stars or galaxies which are observed clearly by minutes far away are explained as "gravitational lenses?"

Come on, gravity of stars and galaxies won't cause such deflection of images, no way, the formulas given by Einstein provide a minimum displacement showing that relativity is not the answer to the current observations.

On the other hand, consider that gaseous matter and particles are around stars and planets and galaxies as well. From a close view you see the gas and particles, from a far away view you see what "these gas and particles reflect" from other objects.

Lets use the rings of Saturn. from far away you see color lines around this planet, this is caused by the reflection of light on them from our far away point of view. From a closer view you see asteroids looking as floating giant rocks.

The same as well, the cause of the "observed lenses" is our far away location from the observed phenomena and by the presence in space of bodies which are causing the deflaction and reflection of images of other stars around.

And worst for Einstein, he didn't even predicted that gravity should affect light, but his idea was that "light itself cannot be affected by gravity but that gravity will distort (the assumed) space-time and light "traveling straight" through the distorted space-time will look like bending.

Lots of imagination and zero knowledge in reality.

 

[bandaidwoman]

I am under the impression you think Newtonian's theory of gravity is still the best explanation for the observations we see? I did admit eddington's stuff was questionable, you still did not provide a concrete explantion for why the white dwarf data is erroneous? Anyway, no wonder American scientific educations lags behind the rest of the develped world.

That famous photoelectric experiment has presented lots of doubts as well, even when the propaganda about it claims that it was successful. A review made about the results and the theorical explanation showed lots of failures from the theorical part.

For my own eddification, can you tell me how was it erroneous when Robert Milliken spent years trying to disprove it? He actually wom a nobel prize for the series experiments he designed trying to disprove it and only supported Einstein. He even devised techniques for scraping clean the metal surfaces inside the vacuum tube. For all his efforts he found disappointing results: he confirmed Einstein's theory, measuring Planck's constant to within 0.5% by this method.

The goverment should regulate what scientists spread out in journals, books and conferences, by enforcing a law that theorists must explain their ideas with a clear statement like "it is assumed that time exists and by consequence the theory of such and such speculates that this and that."

I believe you misunderstand the scientific community. As a whole we realize that there are no dogmas in explaining scientific phenomenom. Every single scientific theory is the "best" but not "only" or "perfect" model for explaining natural phenomenom. We realize they are only approximations. Ie: Newtonian physics is the most pragmatic theory explaining large falling bodies, but collapses on a molecular level so we bring in quantum theory, etc. What you say is already true. The only ones pruporting dogmatic conclusions are the lay writers and the media.

 

[Andy]

What I can see in the article is that the clocks malfunction.

Look, when you travel in an airplane you suffer changes due to the different environment inside the flying plane which is different to ground.

Do not expect less with matter in general.

Besides, having that clocks change that way in fron of such different environment, don't expect that your body reaction will show similar effects.

For example, turn on the gas burner in a stove and put a pot over it for 30 minutes to a full flame . The metal will heat up, expand and maybe will turn red. Now, put your hand over the same flame over the same period of time, your hand won't expand but it will burn. See? they have different consequences in front of the same change of environment, because clocks are made of metal and humans are organic compounds.

As a conclusion for that imaginary "twin paradox", you cannot imply that because the clocks showed failures or slowing data in the flying airplanes your body is having the same effects, To say so is to spread out silly assumptions.

All 9 atomic clocks malfunctioned? And the grouped atomic clocks all malfunctioned identically? And why would the westward bound clocks malfunction in the exact opposite way as the eastward bound clocks if both were in practically identical environments moving at the same speed?

This is riddiculous.

 

[MSgt]

Hmmm. We've broken the sound barrier and we've even broken wind. Now, we are looking to break the speed of light. Our achievments are grand.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Hmmm. We've broken the sound barrier and we've even broken wind. Now, we are looking to break the speed of light. Our achievments are grand.

My hats off to you! :mrgreen:

 

[bandaidwoman]

Well, as the deflection was about 0.8 and 1.9 seconds of arc, which cannot be noticed by naked eyes by any means, how in the world there is a claim that the deflection of images of stars behind other stars or galaxies which are observed clearly by minutes far away are explained as "gravitational lenses?"

Come on, gravity of stars and galaxies won't cause such deflection of images, no way, the formulas given by Einstein provide a minimum displacement showing that relativity is not the answer to the current

Uhhh ......Have you forgotten the copious amount of data collected by the Hubble Telescope or is all that data worthless?

Einstein knew that the lensed image seperations predicted were so small in angular size they were beyond the capabilities of ground-based optical telescopes which were available at the time.. This made him remark that "there is no great chance of observing this phenomenon." I think you forget that with the instruments invented in 1979 followed by the Hubble , we were able to detect these gravitational lenses more easily.

Oh wait, it must be some conspiracy devised by the cosmology scientific community

 

[teacher]

Your failure to answer properly my request will automatically discard your point as valid.

You talking to me? Got me confused with someone else?

I thought the clock thing was pretty simple. Take two clocks, make one go real fast like. Put them next to each other later, clocks be different. EVERY time. Stuff like that is kinda hard to refute.

You have some VERY EXACTING criteria, don't you?

Well then sport. If you are superman of theory criteria, I got us a little theory unfolding right here at DP. Not no little "where do those missing socks go?" kinda thing, big, big theory. Nobel prize stuff. Right next door here in this forum, thread called "How to Build a Pyramid". By me, teacher, of the colossal brain, of course. Let's see how your anal theory criteria holds up against a theory right here, with the theory writer standing by to defend.

In otherwords, put up or shut up.

Hmmm. We've broken the sound barrier and we've even broken wind. Now, we are looking to break the speed of light. Our achievments are grand.

Break dance, break bread, break down, break fast, take breaks, go on breaks, breaks over, break it up, nope, can't beat break wind.

You win. And for that, you shall now receive the holy "You Don't Suck" award...

Don't have paint right now, so just imagine that #3 is a #4, I fix later.

I just pretend I don't notice you not listing my achievment, my theory that is, which is mine.

I believe you misunderstand the scientific community. As a whole we realize that there are no dogmas in explaining scientific phenomenom. Every single scientific theory is the "best" but not "only" or "perfect" model for explaining natural phenomenom. We realize they are only approximations. The only ones pruporting dogmatic conclusions are the lay writers and the media.

Just wondering, but I'm running into exactly the opposite with my pyramid construction theory (that's three times in one post I've managed to bring it up). Now maybe physicists are different than Archaeologists and Egyptologists, but these scientists are friggin morons.

I don't always spend all the time on a thread I should before criticizing, but I seem to get away with it, is conquer saying that light (photons) are not affected by gravity?

The goverment must create and enforce a regulation for theorical scientists to release their assumptions with the clear understanding that their explanations about a phenomena are not factual. Theorists must make clear in their statements that their words are educated guesses. We must protect our children and future generations from this kind of "intellectual predators" who are abusing of the trust of the people in order to make profit.

But I'm with you on this one sport. I talk about this often in my pyramid thread. I'm gonna destroy, nay, AM destroying such hacks. I email them, blow them up, tell them where my theory (four) is, they write back, say they will come here and shredd my theory, I watch them show up, spend hours on that thread, then go away. Then I email them and taunt them for a while. They NEVER answer angain. I'm documenting all this, or most of, or some of that, and have done so in places here on this site. I like being a blue coller guy beating on these eggheads.


And when the Hell is someone going to tell me the speed of gravity?

 

[WI Crippler]

I don't always spend all the time on a thread I should before criticizing, but I seem to get away with it, is conquer saying that light (photons) are not affected by gravity?



And when the Hell is someone going to tell me the speed of gravity?

Just so everybody knows my background, I have forever been fascinated with theoretical physics, and enjoy the topic immensly. However the problem of having an absolute hatred for mathmatics has limited my ability to cognitivley bring anything worthwhile to the table in a mathmatical sense.

However can we not see the effect gravity has on light with black holes?? Its an extreme case in the realm of high energy physics but it would seem to lend credence to the fact that gravity does affect light.

I don't know that gravity is measured in speed is it?? its interesting to think that gravity has a speed. But I don't know how its measured. If it did have a speed I think it would have to be relative to something to do with size, spin etc... Like I said, I have no clue.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Just wondering, but I'm running into exactly the opposite with my pyramid construction theory (that's three times in one post I've managed to bring it up). Now maybe physicists are different than Archaeologists and Egyptologists, but these scientists are friggin morons.

I don't keep up with archeological science since my initial background was as a chemist, ( close cousins to the physicists but we concentrate on the non- nuclear matter ie: electron behavior etc.) . We don't claim any universal truth ..... afterall, we are still looking for the grand unification theory!

The crux of the matter is ....... general public often thinks of scientific claims as absolutely certain truths. They think that if something is not certain, it is not scientific and if it is not scientific, then any other non-scientific view is its equal. This misconception seems to be, at least in part, behind the general lack of understanding about the nature of scientific theories.

The distinguishing feature of scientific theories is that they testable and falsifiable. The greater the number of severe tests a theory has passed, the greater its degree of confirmation and the more reasonable it is to accept it. Howerver, no scientific theory can be proved with absolute certainty.

Any scientist who claims absolute certainty is not a true scientist.

A useful theory is rich or fecund, i.e., many empirical predictions can be generated from it, each one serving as another test of the theory. This feature of fecundity is probably the main difference between the theory of natural selection and the theory of special creation. The theory of special creation has not led to new discoveries, better understanding, or increased understanding of the relatedness of areas within the field of biology or between such fields as biology and psychology. As such, the theory of special creation is nearly useless.( even if it is right!) . General relativity is also fecund in its prediction of mercury's orbit, by accurately predicting the precession of the orbits of planets, determined the path of photons along a curved structure of space-time and even predicted the orbital collapse binary neutron stars etc.

The history of science clearly shows that scientific theories do not remain forever unchanged. The history of science is, among other things, the history of theorizing, testing, arguing, refining, rejecting, replacing, more theorizing, more testing, etc.

The trick is to know how to develop tests in reality that avoid confirmation bias, wishful thinking, self-deception, selective thinking, subjective validation etc.!. This is what I excercise on a daily basis when I read medical studies, and it applies to other branches of science although many other fields are not as acessible to common scrutiny if you are not adept in its language ( mathmatics in the case of Physics and some fields of chemistry).

 

[teacher]

Just so everybody knows my background, I have forever been fascinated with theoretical physics, and enjoy the topic immensly.

I enjoy lighting fire to and sticking pins in my little Billo voodoo dolls.

However the problem of having an absolute hatred for mathmatics has limited my ability to cognitivley bring anything worthwhile to the table in a mathmatical sense.

A man who proudly states he can only count to 21 in the shower. Gotta love that.

However can we not see the effect gravity has on light with black holes??

I thought so, methinks (I heard Tashash say that once in The Basement when she thought I wasn't looking. NOTHING gets by The Warden) conquer has his work cut out for him on this battle. Seems like all are again him. Which is fun when you are me, and win, always, but it's not looking good for him.

And speaking of she whom I'm enamoured with and have made it my sole porpose in life to court until I gets to see the st-st-stockings with the line up the back, giddyup, yeaaaaaaaaaaa me, sorry, I always get a tad excited there, where is Tashah?

Its an extreme case in the realm of high energy physics but it would seem to lend credence to the fact that gravity does affect light.

Maybe conquer is just pulling our chain.

I don't know that gravity is measured in speed is it?? its interesting to think that gravity has a speed. But I don't know how its measured. If it did have a speed I think it would have to be relative to something to do with size, spin etc...

Either has a speed or is instantaneous. I've a funny hunch when we figure out gravity we are gonna see God behind the formula winking at us.

Like I said, I have no clue.

You know, you coulda said that at the beginning and let me keep the last ten minutes of my life.

 

[bandaidwoman]

yeah where is brainiac Tasha? I myself have always had a complex since in the hiercarchy of the physical sciences physicists such as Tasha are up there on the top of the totem pole and lowly chemists/ biologists are pretty much at the bottom, however, perhaps archeologists and Egyptologists may be a lower life form according to Teacher.

 

[WI Crippler]

You know, you coulda said that at the beginning and let me keep the last ten minutes of my life.

Just trying to help the weekend get here faster for you. thats the kind of guy I am.

 

[bandaidwoman]

Fourth, there is not a single law of physics supporting the theories of relativity, time traveling, light traveling through millions and millions of years, a constant speed of light, and more. By consequence, his theories are pseudoscience.

a constant speed of light,

For the record, it is not a valid assumption in general relativity, only in special relativitiy. In general relativity the cordinate speed of light varies with the gravitational field. Just a FYI.
back me up here Tasha!

You must know that Newton predicted as well the same displavcement of images due to gravitational causes. The idea of this displacement has been also credited only to Einstein and such is false. Newton predicted it first.

Yeah but Einstein made it better. No one is detracting from your infallible God of Physics Newton. The end result of a full GR calculation is that light deflects twice as much as a quasi-Newtonian calculation. The quasi-Newtonian calculation assumes that light (or corpuscles) travels at 'c', and that they have an equal gravitational and inertial mass. The latter actually introduces a bit of general relativity because pure Newtonian theory doesn't incorporate the equivalence principle yet...and well that's the essence of einstien vs Newton I guess

 

[conquer]

I am under the impression you think Newtonian's theory of gravity is still the best explanation for the observations we see? I did admit eddington's stuff was questionable, you still did not provide a concrete explantion for why the white dwarf data is erroneous? Anyway, no wonder American scientific educations lags behind the rest of the develped world.

Wrong impression. I am not a "pro-Newton" person.

For my own eddification, can you tell me how was it erroneous when Robert Milliken spent years trying to disprove it? He actually wom a nobel prize for the series experiments he designed trying to disprove it and only supported Einstein. He even devised techniques for scraping clean the metal surfaces inside the vacuum tube. For all his efforts he found disappointing results: he confirmed Einstein's theory, measuring Planck's constant to within 0.5% by this method.

Yes indeed you need to read again about it. Miliken was not against the ideas of Einstein, he didn't have to.

Plank's original idea of calling "quanta" to the elements which formed light was replaced by better propaganda by the concept of "photons" (On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Productionb and Transformation of Light) Miliken's experiments provided the convincing proof of the concept of photons as well that determined directly the value of Planck's constant.

However, the idea that light was made of particles was already known since centuries ago by ancient greeks and also...by Newton. The ancient greeks considered light as composed by minute grains in rapid movement which appeared to move in straight lines.

Newton wrote in his Optiks not only that light was made of particles but also the wavelenght characteristics of it.

I believe you misunderstand the scientific community. As a whole we realize that there are no dogmas in explaining scientific phenomenom. Every single scientific theory is the "best" but not "only" or "perfect" model for explaining natural phenomenom. We realize they are only approximations. Ie: Newtonian physics is the most pragmatic theory explaining large falling bodies, but collapses on a molecular level so we bring in quantum theory, etc. What you say is already true. The only ones pruporting dogmatic conclusions are the lay writers and the media.

I agree with your last statement. However, some members of the scientific community are taking advantage of some theories which are "hot" to exploit and make statements which are out of reality in order to keep the market open and make profit.

For example, very recently the (absurd) idea of Einstein of a "cosmological constant" was in the news saying that new observations confirm the predictions made by Einstein in his Cosmological Considerations written in 1917.

Nothing even near to the truth.

When Einstein was interviewed by Alexander Moszkowski in Berlin about the Cosmological Considerations, Einstein told him, "The whole universe, has a diameter of about 100 million light years, in round numbers. Than amounts to about 700 trillion miles (European trillion of 10^18). It follows from the mathematical calculations which I have presented in "Cosmological Considerations Arising from the General Theory of Relativity," in which the figure I have just quoted is not given. The exact figure is a minor question. What is important is to recognize the universe may be regarded as a closed continuum as far as distance measurements are concerned."

The current observations do not support at all a universe with a 100 million light years of diameter. The General Theory of Relativity failed as well the cosmological constant calculations.

Of course, the failures of the theory are not given in the news which might be better described as a paid propaganda.

Actually, scientists as Gott and many others like Richard Feynman and more, have been making profit by spreading fantasies as if they were scientific facts. The review of Feynman "Twin Paradox" clearly demonstrates that he didn't even know what he was talking about. You can find lots of silly imaginations presented as "evidence" to prove an assumed slow physical flowing of time.

So, this is not a misunderstand about the scientific community, this is a case of asking for a regulatron to stop the abuse performed by individuals who use their positions to make profits by selling incorrect information.

Don't think that they (several members of the scientific community) "ignore" the facts. What I can observe is a methodic and ordained release of pseudoscience to the public.

 

[conquer]

All 9 atomic clocks malfunctioned? And the grouped atomic clocks all malfunctioned identically? And why would the westward bound clocks malfunction in the exact opposite way as the eastward bound clocks if both were in practically identical environments moving at the same speed?

This is riddiculous.

Sure, so as Venus and Uranus rotation is retrograde these planets are going backward in time.

Tell me about it.

Very soon those planets will be observed as planetesimals...

The clocks malfunction, no doubt about it. Put a quartz watch in the freezer compartment of your refrigerator, it will start to malfunction with a rate of up to 6 seconds per day in comparison with a similar clock in the livingroom. Try it. What now? Are you going to tell me that "time slows its passage in cold weather too?"

 

[conquer]

Uhhh ......Have you forgotten the copious amount of data collected by the Hubble Telescope or is all that data worthless?

Einstein knew that the lensed image seperations predicted were so small in angular size they were beyond the capabilities of ground-based optical telescopes which were available at the time.. This made him remark that "there is no great chance of observing this phenomenon." I think you forget that with the instruments invented in 1979 followed by the Hubble , we were able to detect these gravitational lenses more easily.

Oh wait, it must be some conspiracy devised by the cosmology scientific community

The point in discussion is what causes the deflection of images. Einstein predicted a lowest deflection not by our capability of observation but because the gravity will cause a minimum of displascement in the images of stars near other celestial bodies.

The observation of the displacements was an already observation made even before Einstein's theories.

The competence between Newton and Einstein was about which one of their predictions was supported by the photographs taken in the expeditions. In 1919 Newton won the contest, but Eddington manipulated the results to gve the victory to Einstein.

The Hubble observations reveal the same lowest displacement of stars in a solar eclipse, and worst for Einstein and Newton, such displacement can be easily taken as caused by the turbulent atmosphera of the Sun.

There are lots of plausible causes for the displacement of images, like mirages which are caused by difference of density in the air for example.

 

[conquer]

You talking to me? Got me confused with someone else?

I thought the clock thing was pretty simple. Take two clocks, make one go real fast like. Put them next to each other later, clocks be different. EVERY time. Stuff like that is kinda hard to refute.

You have some VERY EXACTING criteria, don't you?

Well then sport. If you are superman of theory criteria, I got us a little theory unfolding right here at DP. Not no little "where do those missing socks go?" kinda thing, big, big theory. Nobel prize stuff. Right next door here in this forum, thread called "How to Build a Pyramid". By me, teacher, of the colossal brain, of course. Let's see how your anal theory criteria holds up against a theory right here, with the theory writer standing by to defend.

In otherwords, put up or shut up.

My pleasure. It sounds like fan...I mean fun?

 

[bandaidwoman]

Yes indeed you need to read again about it. Miliken was not against the ideas of Einstein, he didn't have to.

Plank's original idea of calling "quanta" to the elements which formed light was replaced by better propaganda by the concept of "photons" (On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Productionb and Transformation of Light) Miliken's experiments provided the convincing proof of the concept of photons as well that determined directly the value of Planck's constant.

However, the idea that light was made of particles was already known since centuries ago by ancient greeks and also...by Newton. The ancient greeks considered light as composed by minute grains in rapid movement which appeared to move in straight lines.

Nice essay but still did not directly address the fact that you thought the photoelectic experiment was fallacious. I still cannot find how his elegant and simple experiment was flawed. You pointed out the flaws in Eddingtons data collection, I need the same amount of concrete data.

Of course, the failures of the theory are not given in the news which might be better described as a paid propaganda.

It is the media which is at fault, we can both agree to that, but it is not the scientists. I look at my field of medicine where on a weekly basis I have to wade through conflicting results (ie: drug eluted stents are better than regular stents in preventing restenosis after angioplasty but long term studies show higher death rates that not cardiac related etc.). .

What I can observe is a methodic and ordained release of pseudoscience to the public.

Once again, not the scientific community who at large critique and publish studies that either counter or suppport existing theories. We don't hold press conferences about our studies. Famous icons like Einstein etc. probably did in the past.

Einstein was incredibly right about some things and wrong in others, as was Newton. Both had beliefs that were questionable (Newton always thought God pushed planets back into orbit since eventually all orbits decayed rapidly with his calculations, Einstein and quantum mechanics, francis Crick believes biological life on this planet was seeded by extraterrestrials etc.) This is the key.... they all had beliefs but did not dogmatically say they had proof of their beliefs (Einstein could never come up with experimental proof against quantization of light etc as much as he tried to.), and well the other two....I don't believe Crick tried to prove UFOs exist etc.

The upshot is, all three provided theories that have continued to provide copious amount of experimental data that justify its ideas. Like most of the public you take one flaw and deem that theory invalid...welll , in that case Superstring theory, quantum theory, newtonian gravitational theory, electromagnetic theory, are all invalid. Not just general relativistic gravitational theory. If you hate general reativity, what is the most complete gravitational theory there is? , it certainly isn't Newtonian gravitational theory!

Take your complaints to the media who always present one sided opinions wether it is political or scientific. I see their one sided myopic misrepresenations all the time with medical studies wether it is critiquing or lauding a medical break through. There are copious studies (available to the public eye) showing healthy skepticism among the scientific community arguing pro or con with existing theories. Unfortunately, they don't publish quick synopsis so that anyone can just google the information.


And please don't keep harping about how some ideas existed before Einstein. Of course they did, but his equivalence principle, photoelectric experimentation revolutionised exponentially the current ideas that were available at the time. He revolutionized gravitational theory to the same degree Darwn's natural selection revolutionized LaMarkian mechanism of evolution. And thank goodness we don't put LaMark on the same pedastal.

 

[bandaidwoman]

I have no idea where you are getting the hubble telescope data that supposedly refutes einstien but lets play on my turf, quantum chemistry....

Let's see, here's one, Bose Einstein condensate ( another state of matter that has been found) ... predicted by Einstein, now for that I would bow at his heels of greatness!:mrgreen: .

A Bose–Einstein condensate is a phase of matter formed by bosons cooled to temperatures very near to absolute zero (0 kelvin or -273.15 degrees Celsius). Under such supercooled conditions, a large fraction of the atoms collapse into the lowest quantum state, at which point quantum effects become apparent on a macroscopic scale.

This state of matter was first predicted as a consequence of quantum mechanics by Albert Einstein, building upon the work of Satyendra Nath Bose in 1925. Seventy years later, the first such condensate was produced by Eric Cornell and Carl Wieman in 1995 at the University of Colorado at Boulder NIST- JILA lab, using a gas of rubidium atoms cooled to 170 nanokelvin (nK). Cornell and Wieman and Wolfgang Ketterle were awarded the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Here is the beauty of his mind, he emotionally and theologically rejected quantum mechanics but continued a chain of logic, from the first photoelectric experiment to his predictions half a century earlier of a state of matter no one knew could exist! So tell me again, why Einstein is still a nin cum poop?

 

[bandaidwoman]

For example, very recently the (absurd) idea of Einstein of a "cosmological constant" was in the news saying that new observations confirm the predictions made by Einstein in his Cosmological Considerations written in 1917.

First of all, Einstein was not the dogmatic intellectual tyrant you presuppose.

Albert Einstein initially thought that the universe was static: that it neither expanded nor shrank. When his own Theory of General Relativity clearly showed that the universe should expand or contract, Einstein chose to introduce a new ingredient into his theory, this "cosmological constant" as you stated.

When in 1929 Edwin Hubble proved that the universe is in fact expanding, Einstein repudiated his cosmological constant, calling it "the greatest blunder of my life."


So you forgot to mention he revoked his cosmological constant.....tsk,tsk

 

[Andy]

Sure, so as Venus and Uranus rotation is retrograde these planets are going backward in time.

Tell me about it.

Very soon those planets will be observed as planetesimals...

The clocks malfunction, no doubt about it. Put a quartz watch in the freezer compartment of your refrigerator, it will start to malfunction with a rate of up to 6 seconds per day in comparison with a similar clock in the livingroom. Try it. What now? Are you going to tell me that "time slows its passage in cold weather too?"

No, no, no, no, no, no. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

It's the relative speed of an object, not the motion, that determines time flow. The eastbound plane is adding X km/h to its speed because it is moving with the Earth's rotation, the westbound is actually decreasing its speed because it is moving against the Earth's rotation.

 

[teacher]

Just trying to help the weekend get here faster for you. thats the kind of guy I am.

Nice try.

No soup for you!

 

[teacher]

My pleasure. It sounds like fan...I mean fun?

Balls in your court, but it might take a while to sink in, being as it's very simple.

I'll be here, or there rather.

Waiting.

(Sound of Monkeys snoring).