• 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?

ApolloGnomon said:
The problem is that you think we don't know this. The reason "empty space" is not heated up is that no photons are absorbed.

So what's the IR absorptance of a piece of "glass" specifically chosen for low thermal response? What's the emittance?
Click to expand...

Do some web searches. I'm sure you could find that information on the Internet.
 
Anders Lindman said:
A 12 year old girl could claim to be a NASA scientist on the Internet, lol.
Click to expand...

The inverse is also true. So what? If a 12 year old claiming to be a NASA scientists says stupid crap that makes no sense people will begin to doubt the veracity of the claimant's alleged identity.

Nobody here has met those criteria. Your posts, my posts, jayutah's posts, abaddon's posts are all within character for the credentials each one of us claims.
 
ApolloGnomon said:
The inverse is also true. So what? If a 12 year old claiming to be a NASA scientists says stupid crap that makes no sense people will begin to doubt the veracity of the claimant's alleged identity.

Nobody here has met those criteria. Your posts, my posts, jayutah's posts, abaddon's posts are all within character for the credentials each one of us claims.
Click to expand...

I doubt that many real scientists are on a forum like this.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I'm not calling anyone posting on forums liars. That would be stupid. People could be lying or not lying. A 12 year old girl could claim to be a NASA scientist on the Internet, lol.
Click to expand...

If JU is not a NASA scientist of the credentials he claims then he could be wrong about Apollo. He would also then be a liar concerning his credentials.

If he is a NASA scientist with the credentials he claims then he is incorrect but with full knowledge that he is incorrect, and therefore a liar.

OTOH if he is a NASA scientist and is correct then he is not a liar. (and you are wrong)

You may not be willing to actually post the words but you have directly implied that JU is lieing either about Apollo or about his credentials.
 
Last edited:
jaydeehess said:
If JU is not a NASA scientist of the credentials he claims then he could be wrong about Apollo. He would also then be a liar concerning his credentials.

If he is a NASA scientist with the credentials he claims then he is incorrect but with full knowledge that he is incorrect, and therefore a liar.

OTOH if he is a NASA scientist and is correct then he is not a liar. (and you are wrong)

You may not be willing to actually post the words but you have directly implied that JU is lieing either about Apollo or about his credentials.
Click to expand...

I doubt everything on Internet forums.
 
jaydeehess said:
If JU is not a NASA scientist of the credentials he claims then he could be wrong about Apollo. He would also then be a liar concerning his credentials.

If he is a NASA scientist with the credentials he claims then he is incorrect but with full knowledge that he is incorrect, and therefore a liar.

OTOH if he is a NASA scientist and is correct then he is not a liar. (and you are wrong)

You may not be willing to actually post the words but you have directly implied that JU is lieing either about Apollo or about his credentials.
Click to expand...

Anders Lindman said:
I doubt everything on Internet forums.
Click to expand...

That does not address my post in any way shape or form. Care to try again?
 
Anders Lindman said:
I doubt everything on Internet forums.
Click to expand...

twinstead said:
You apparently doubt everything in real life too
Click to expand...

One remains upright while riding a bicycle due to the physics of the two wheels turning.

One COULD read about how to ride a bike but if AL did so he would doubt everything in the book and declare it impossible to remain upright except for individuals with exceptional balance akin to to tightrope walkers.:D
 
twinstead said:
You apparently doubt everything in real life too
Click to expand...

There is a different between direct knowledge and indirect knowledge. Einstein's theories of relativity is indirect knowledge for almost everybody including most scientists.
 
Last edited:
The scientific method is good for finding out things. It is however vulnerable to Big Lie frauds. Take HIV for example which is a virus that may not even exist, yet billions of dollars and decades of research have been spent on HIV-related research. It's enough to have the foundation for a scientific discovery as a hoax for it to continue into a whole mountain of research, all perfectly valid and true in itself, except it's built on a false foundation. That makes the scientific method as it is today vulnerable and prone to move into catastrophically false directions.

I claim that Einstein's theories of relativity is another Big Lie hoax, a false foundation on which a huge mountain of messy false theories have been build.
 
Anders Lindman said:
The scientific method is good for finding out things. It is however vulnerable to Big Lie frauds. Take HIV for example which is a virus that may not even exist, yet billions of dollars and decades of research have been spent on HIV-related research. It's enough to have the foundation for a scientific discovery as a hoax for it to continue into a whole mountain of research, all perfectly valid and true in itself, except it's built on a false foundation. That makes the scientific method as it is today vulnerable and prone to move into catastrophically false directions.

I claim that Einstein's theories of relativity is another Big Lie hoax, a false foundation on which a huge mountain of messy false theories have been build.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Hundreds of thousands of graduate students perform thesis research projects every year. All the "Big Lies" you talk about are fair game for these projects, or provide structural background for the research they choose. If these things were truly "big lies" the massive army of enthusiastic aspirants would peek around the curtain and see the lies.

But they don't. Because there are no "Big Lies."
 
Last edited:
Anders Lindman said:
It is however vulnerable to Big Lie frauds.
Click to expand...


How is the scientific method vulnerable to Big Lie Methods?

The scientific method requires that hypothesies be tested, and that the tests be capable of being replicated. The Big Lie requires endless repetition of a known falsehood so that it is perceived to be correct. The Big Lie also falls apart when tested. If a test is duplicated and does not yeidl the expected result there are 2 primary reasons:

A. You did not properly replicate the original test (Solution, try again); and
B. the priniciple is not what it says on the tin (solution, try again. If you get keep getting the "unexpected" solution, that may be actual answer, and the original hypothesis revised)

So to paraphrase the movie "The Rock"," How in the name of Zeus' butt-hole is the scientific method vulnerable to the Big Lie?"
 
Anders Lindman said:
It would take a long time for me to learn how to do that. That sounds like super effort. I'm not THAT fanatic about conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

So...you don't even know how to calculate it, but you are sure you already know the answer.

Anders, doing physics is not being able to subtract and multiply; it is knowing which variables matter. it isn't a matter of not doing the math; it is a matter of applying the wrong assumptions to the problem.
 
Anders Lindman said:
No.
Click to expand...

Really? The query is really quite straightforward;
Either you accept JU's stated credentials in which case, according to you, he is lieing about Apollo;
OR
You reject his claimed credentials in which case you ipso facto are stating he is a liar about his credentials.

OR: you accept his credentials and his statements on the veracity of Apollo.

There are no other choices, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom