• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

Another hilarious claim is that someone traveling in a rocket around Earth near the speed of light will speed up the entire universe. Fairy tales, folks. A Big Lie con job. Don't let obedience to authorities blind you from critical thinking.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Another hilarious claim is that someone traveling in a rocket around Earth near the speed of light will speed up the entire universe. Fairy tales, folks. A Big Lie con job. Don't let obedience to authorities blind you from critical thinking.
Click to expand...

Nice Godwin there. Well played
 
DrDave said:
Nice Godwin there. Well played
Click to expand...

lol. I looked it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

But my claim is a serious one in this case. Why would someone create a false theory like Einstein's relativity? As conspiracy researchers have said, there are (at least) two levels of knowledge in the world; one for the public going up to the level of professors in academia, and another level above that with different knowledge. Why? Because by keeping the true knowledge to themselves and feeding the public diversion theories they (shadow powers) can remain one step ahead all the time.
 
And look at the superstring theories and M-theories and whatnot. What a mess! Wouldn't be fair to say that Occam's Razor in this case indicates that Einstein's theories are false, rather than the need for umpteen dimensions and incredible mathematical acrobatics?
 
Anders Lindman said:
It's basic stuff. Two photons traveling in opposite directions for one year will have a distance between them of two lightyears. This means that the relative velocity between them is two times the speed of light.
Click to expand...

As measured by... whom? You understand that both time and distance are relative, correct?
 
Roboramma said:
That's a nice assertion there. Now, perhaps you can give me an actual experiment that you predict to have a different result than is predicted by relativity?
Click to expand...

If the distance of two lightyears is a bit unpractical with today's relatively primitive technology, let's make the experiment in a lab. Send two photons at the same time in opposite directions and measure the time it takes for them to travel 10 meters. The total distance between the photons is 20 meters and the velocity between the two photons 2c. If you can show such experiment resulting in 1c between the photons you might have a point.
 
Anders Lindman said:
If the distance of two lightyears is a bit unpractical with today's relatively primitive technology, let's make the experiment in a lab. Send two photons at the same time in opposite directions and measure the time it takes for them to travel 10 meters. The total distance between the photons is 20 meters and the velocity between the two photons 2c. If you can show such experiment resulting in 1c between the photons you might have a point.
Click to expand...
Considering that that is the result predicted by relativity, I don't see your point.
 
Roboramma said:
So you prove relativity wrong not by showing that it's internally inconsistent (it's not) but by asserting that it's wrong?

Okay... :confused:
Click to expand...

I show how Einstein's relativity is wrong by pointing out that the relative velocity between two photons traveling in opposite directions is two times the speed of light. If you can show a scientific experiment showing that the velocity between the photons is 1c you I would be surprised.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I show how Einstein's relativity is wrong by pointing out that the relative velocity between two photons traveling in opposite directions
Click to expand...
As measured in the lab
is two times the speed of light.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly what relativity predicts.
So, you show relativity wrong by pointing out that it predicts the same thing as you... usually you show something is wrong by pointing out that it's predictions are wrong not that they are correct...

I asked you to offer an experiment whose results you predict would be different from those predicted by relativity. Your failure to do so shows that you simply don't understand what relativity predicts.
 
Roboramma said:
Considering that that is the result predicted by relativity, I don't see your point.
Click to expand...

Not if the frame of reference is one of the photons in relation to the other photon. Are you claiming that the relative velocity between two photons traveling in opposite directions is 1c?
 
Roboramma said:
As measured in the lab

Which is exactly what relativity predicts.
So, you show relativity wrong by pointing out that it predicts the same thing as you... usually you show something is wrong by pointing out that it's predictions are wrong not that they are correct...

I asked you to offer an experiment whose results you predict would be different from those predicted by relativity. Your failure to do so shows that you simply don't understand what relativity predicts.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the frame of reference cannot be one of the photons?
 
Anders Lindman said:
Photons affected by gravity? Why would that need General Relativity to prove it?
Click to expand...

Because it's an experimental confirmation of gravitational time dilation?
But here's another:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5999/1630.abstract
Observers in relative motion or at different gravitational potentials measure disparate clock rates. These predictions of relativity have previously been observed with atomic clocks at high velocities and with large changes in elevation. We observed time dilation from relative speeds of less than 10 meters per second by comparing two optical atomic clocks connected by a 75-meter length of optical fiber. We can now also detect time dilation due to a change in height near Earth’s surface of less than 1 meter. This technique may be extended to the field of geodesy, with applications in geophysics and hydrology as well as in space-based tests of fundamental physics.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom