Einstein Was Wrong !

[presidente]

Sorry. Posthuman is getting under my skin. He is on ignore.

That's a shame. Aren't you being a bit sensitive. You should consider what he said about disproving hypothess. A hypothesis might be true but another variable is interfering. Scientists generally do not change their dogma without evidence like a grand theory that becomes popular. There is no evidence for the multiverse that I know of but it is not universally accepted either.

I would jump in and do some reading on the matter regardless of your level of education. Common sense by God's Grace is enough for anybody to look into this further. I use the results of my research for my ministry efforts.….ALL the time. Constantly. And what is disturbing is that there are confused Christians who balk at the Truth of Scripture because of being constantly bombarded by scientific fallacy. So in that respect it is both edifying on a personal level (it was for me) but MUCH more importantly…...WITNESSING.

The apologetics aspect is appealing. I wonder, though, for the time investment if better approach to reach atheists might be just share the gospel without arguing science, show love, pray for their sick grandma ir ither beefs and ket them see Gid answer prayer, etc. But if you can do science apolegetics as a tool to open people to the gospel more power to you.

It s funny what wins people. I sawa video Chinese people were using, a video about ancient Chinese poetry and an ancient word for enpoer meaning the one chosen y God or with wisdom from God. It seemed pointless for evangelism from an American perspective but the idea that believing in God is Chinese might be a useful apologetic for a Chinese atheist

This guy I met in a church service once told me that God would use me to reach atheists. I think it had to do with college campuses. I will have to look and see if I took notes. If physics would help evangelism, I am open.

But I know I am mot a physicist and I o not like being pretentious. I have the letters after my name from another field and I feel I have all the more of a duty not to feign expertise.

 

[cv5]

That's a shame. Aren't you being a bit sensitive. You should consider what he said about disproving hypothess. A hypothesis might be true but another variable is interfering. Scientists generally do not change their dogma without evidence like a grand theory that becomes popular. There is no evidence for the multiverse that I know of but it is not universally accepted either.



The apologetics aspect is appealing. I wonder, though, for the time investment if better approach to reach atheists might be just share the gospel without arguing science, show love, pray for their sick grandma ir ither beefs and ket them see Gid answer prayer, etc. But if you can do science apolegetics as a tool to open people to the gospel more power to you.

It s funny what wins people. I sawa video Chinese people were using, a video about ancient Chinese poetry and an ancient word for enpoer meaning the one chosen y God or with wisdom from God. It seemed pointless for evangelism from an American perspective but the idea that believing in God is Chinese might be a useful apologetic for a Chinese atheist

This guy I met in a church service once told me that God would use me to reach atheists. I think it had to do with college campuses. I will have to look and see if I took notes. If physics would help evangelism, I am open.

But I know I am mot a physicist and I o not like being pretentious. I have the letters after my name from another field and I feel I have all the more of a duty not to feign expertise.

What I do is testify and witness (to the world, everybody and anybody) to the fact that I have studied the matter in great depth and detail, and know and have confirmed that the

Einstein revealed himself to me, and he said you were completely bonkers..........Do I believe him or you?

Hmm

Think I'll go with him..............he ain't quite as big a wing nut as you are revealing yourself to be

Lol. Quite an aggressive response. At any rate, the data is there for your approbation. And it is quite conclusive. Einstein was/is wrong. His theories are pure unadulterated humbug. On every level. Natural philosophy at its worst. Fortunately some of us have actually made the effort (EFFORT IN CAPITAL LETTERS) to successfully refute the theories.

 

[p_rehbein]

when did we mention the age of the universe?
or do you mean something different by the word 'world'?

He called you a TROLL.............now that right there is funny, I don't care who you are............

 

[p_rehbein]

I bet he is getting under your skin dude.................after all, he is making you look the dunce you are............

 

[Embankment]

What I do is testify and witness (to the world, everybody and anybody) to the fact that I have studied the matter in great depth and detail, and know and have confirmed that the


Lol. Quite an aggressive response. At any rate, the data is there for your approbation. And it is quite conclusive. Einstein was/is wrong. His theories are pure unadulterated humbug. On every level. Natural philosophy at its worst. Fortunately some of us have actually made the effort (EFFORT IN CAPITAL LETTERS) to successfully refute the theories.

E may ultimately be proven wrong in the distant future.
However, If you go to any place of higher learning that studies such things, they will tell you that most of E’s theories are proven correct and the basis of physics as we know today.
To present something like this as a real challenge to established science is what many would call fake news.

 

[cv5]

I bet he is getting under your skin dude.................after all, he is making you look the dunce you are............

View attachment 191060

Prove it. Just send me some links. Still waiting for that. So far just a lot of empty talk. Have you read the papers I posted? Not a chance. It would take the entire weekend to scritinize the info already sent.

All I hear is crickets. And denials.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Einstein was/is wrong. His theories are pure unadulterated humbug.

It's a good thing Einstein is not around to set you straight, Einstein.

 

[p_rehbein]

Have you gone through all Posthuman provided? Doubt it.............I have nothing to prove to you............you are simply pfishing...........

Here, lemme make you a wee bit more comfortable...



There! Now, pfish to your hearts content

 

[posthuman]

I am just guessing but one would probably have to get to second or third year PhD student knowledge of physics to understand the math with the arguments and theory right?

no not necessarily. Einstein came up with a sort of simplifying notation to shorthand what would otherwise be really long expressions to write out. anyone can learn that. the newtonian physics involved is undergrad-level, for a physics major anyway, but a first-year calculus-based general physics class like anyone in any science or engineering major would give you enough background to understand a class dedicated to the topic.
the sticking point would be the math itself, which is complex variables, linear algebra and analysis. a little topology. these are all courses you wouldn't take unless you're a math major, but an undergrad-level course in each would be enough. graduate level math is waaaaay abstract. you don't necessarily learn new theorems about those subjects but you learn to see them in a whole new way. that's not necessary to know to understand the derivation of the field equations.

the class i took was a mix of masters & PHD students ((i was an undergrad but at the top of my class so the prof. let me in)). mostly physics students but a couple mathematicians. the math majors had some general physics to catch up on and the physics majors had some math to learn. the mathematicians i think were in a better position to understand the derivation for sure but the physicists had a better sense of the application. i was a triple major so it was right in my wheelhouse.

it's not like you need 8 years of college to comprehend it. 2 or 3 years if you took the *right* courses and you'd have all the background you need -- thing is that analysis and complex variables are usually junior/senior year classes, and nuclear/modern physics ((or really any course where you talk about tensors)) is as well. so normally a class like this would be masters level or at least towards the end of a 4-yr study.

 

[cv5]

Have you gone through all Posthuman provided? Doubt it.............I have nothing to prove to you............you are simply pfishing...........

Here, lemme make you a wee bit more comfortable...

View attachment 191063

There! Now, pfish to your hearts content

I started the thread. So let Posthuman take time to study the links that I have posted.
I am doing further research tonight, so I will not be reading anything else.

 

[cv5]

It's a good thing Einstein is not around to set you straight, Einstein.

That's all you got? Because that is not all I've got. Not even close. This could take many months. Or years.

 

[cv5]

It's a good thing Einstein is not around to set you straight, Einstein.

I see Einstein worship...all the time. Why do you think the MSM props him up? They need a front man for what they are selling. And what they are selling is not Christ.

Einsten is simply a launching pad for the BB, pantheism, you name it.

But beyond that....Einstein is wrong. Dead wrong. Plenty more where he came from.

 

[posthuman]

I'm not going to get deep in this conversation, but I will just add that I have come across information supporting the theory that space is largely controlled by electromagnetic rather than gravitational forces.

I will also add that anyone who presents an unfamiliar idea does well to do so humbly, and to avoid insulting those whom he is trying to convince.

in certain situations EM can be a stronger force than gravity ((the reverse is also true of course)) and particles with very little mass can have a lot of charge. just because EM forces play a large role in the kinetics and statics of the universe however doesn't mean gravity doesn't exist or that it's just a magnetic phenomena being misunderstood.

 

[maxwel]

Maxwell's equations:

View attachment 191031 ​

where is mass in these?

how do i derive

View attachment 191034 ​

from this?

Those are NOT my equations.


Here are my equations.


Well there's really only one equation... my equation of 1+1.


1 + 1 = an unknown quantity which is most likely greater than 1 but smaller than an unknown quantity which is larger than the aforementioned unknown quantity which is most likely greater than 1, unless and until such time as the equation is expressing said quantities in a hitherto unknown parallel universe in which: such expressions are expressionless due to the non existence of abstract entities or the non existence of cognitive entities capable of expressing said entities, or in which said expressions have logical ability to be expressed but no longer result in the same outcome due to differentials in causality resulting from changes in the anisotropic property of time, or due to a systemic difference to all known laws of physics insofar as we understand them.


I should also mention...
math really confuses me.


...

 

[posthuman]

Those are NOT my equations.


Here are my equations.


Well there's really only one equation... my equation of 1+1.


1 + 1 = an unknown quantity which is most likely greater than 1 but smaller than an unknown quantity which is larger than the aforementioned unknown quantity which is most likely greater than 1, unless and until such time as the equation is expressing said quantities in a hitherto unknown parallel universe in which: such expressions are expressionless due to the non existence of abstract entities or the non existence of cognitive entities capable of expressing said entities, or in which said expressions have logical ability to be expressed but no longer result in the same outcome due to differentials in causality resulting from changes in the anisotropic property of time, or due to a systemic difference to all known laws of physics insofar as we understand them.


I should also mention...
math really confuses me.


...

finally, a post that makes sense

thank you

 

[preacher4truth]

Some of ya'll must work for Geek Squad.

 

[cv5]

It's a good thing Einstein is not around to set you straight, Einstein.

Hilarious.

 

[Nehemiah6]

That's all you got? Because that is not all I've got. Not even close. This could take many months. Or years.

You are losing your focus.

Your goal should not be to prove Einstein is wrong, but to proclaim that CHRIST IS THE ANSWER to every problem.

BTW, Einstein has already established his place in science and history. No need to tilt at windmills.

 

[cv5]

View attachment 191070

Hilarious.

Gravitoelectromagnetism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism


When in doubt, ask Heavyside. Or Steinmetz. Or this guy.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_D._Jefimenko

Jefimenko's expansion, or generalization, is based on the existence of the second gravitational force field, the "cogravitational, or Heaviside's field". This might also be called a gravimagnetic field. It represents a physical approach profoundly different from the time-space geometry approach of the Einstein general theory of relativity. Oliver Heaviside first predicted this field in the article A Gravitational and Electromagnetic Analogy (1893).

Buh-bye Einstein.....

 

[Nehemiah6]

...I will just add that I have come across information supporting the theory that space is largely controlled by electromagnetic rather than gravitational forces.

It would be more reasonable to believe that both gravity and electromagnetic forces are at work, and also accept the wave-particle concept. Energy and matter are inter-convertible, and both behave as particles and waves. And then we must apply Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.