[While trying to explain why light has velocity]
Believe whatever you want to believe. Mathematics does not lie. My mathematics is correct, there is an error in Einstein's.
38 comments
"My mathematics is correct, there is an error in Einstein's."
Well, that explains everything.
Puistokemisti:
Its a newsgroup, not a website. You need a newsreader, unless google groups carries it.
"Believe whatever you want to believe. Mathematics does not lie. My mathematics is correct, there is an error in Einstein's."
It's not hard for me to "believe" that Einstein was smarter than you, genius.
Hubris ahoy!
When Einstein's papers were submitted, he was just a patent clerk, with no scientific standing whatsoever; his ideas had to be accepted entirely on their own merit. They were reviewed and were found acceptable, so they were printed, though they were still thought to be highly theoretical. They were not truly accepted as factual until their predictions had been tested and supported by evidence numerous times.
If you've got something to prove here, the only way you'll prove it is by sending it to the journals, getting it accepted and published, and then getting your ideas tested and supported by evidence. Ranting online means nothing. Put up or shut up.
~David D.G.
I'd call this a troll, except that there are actually people whose hobby is trying to disprove Einstein, and occasionally think they've succeeded. I wouldn't think they were posting on alt.abortion, though.
Mathematics might not lie, but incompetent mathematicians are capable of making up all kinds of crazy things. Slapping down a bunch of numbers, and declaring yourself a genius isn't proof in any field.
So we consider the problem as Einstein set it up, a description of
transmission of light relative to two frames of reference. K is a set
of Cartesian coordinates at rest, K' is a set of Cartesian coordinates
in motion relative to K with velocity v in the direction of the x axis.
if w= velocity of light
x=wt
x'=wt'
gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
w= x/t=x'/t' =(x-vt)gamma/(t-vx/w^2)gamma = (x-vt)/(t-vx/w^2)
If x is negative w= -c or -186,000 miles per second, not c as
Einstein claimed.
Which argument comes down to Einstein said "c = constant in all non-accelerated frames of reference" and rbwinn3 said "no it isn't."
I'd wager that your "mathematics" is not correct. Einstein's field equation has passed rigorous testing and has not failed with the exception of what lies beyond the event horizon of a singularity.
However, I urge you to try to disprove Einstein and publish your "mathematics" in a peer-reviewed journal so that people who know what they're doing can kick the intellectual shit out of you.
"If x is negative w= -c or -186,000 miles per second, not c as
Einstein claimed."
So he is saying that light can travel forward (+c) and backward (-c). Time to rewrite all physics books, boys.
You're an idiot. Not only is this meaningless, but if:
w = -c or -186,000 mi/s as you calculated, and arguing against the claim that it's a speed means your negative sign is pointless. Speed has magnitude, not direction. Negative signs imply direction.
I'm reading his proof, and he seems to think that because Einstein used "speed" and "velocity" interchangeably (as most people did in the 30s or so), then that leaves the door wide open to him - and not Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Ed Witten, etc. - to completely blow the lid off general relativity. He doesn't discuss the Ricci curvature tensor, Riemannian manifolds, or the equivalence principle. Because of a difference in vocabulary, the entire theory is wrong.
BRAVO.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.