Einstein's relativity

All that shit is ad hoc nonsense.

same here, althought I don't understand what he says they'll meet in the middle at a light year too, but regarding Einstein, While I think most the theories credited to him are right, he most probably stole most of it, and the more I learn about the historical context the more I'm convinced

First of all anything with mass can go at the speed light, so the whole scenario fails there. But ok lets say that they go fast enough so thier velocity sum would break the speed of light. Now we come to the relativity stuff. The speed of light is always constant for every observer, and thats kind of the main thing in special relativity. I dunno how much details you want but nature basiclly always try to ( and is successful) maintain the speed of light and different observers will see different things. And by that i mean things like time dilation and length dilation.
So when the 2 rockets go pass eachother at a very high speed the diferent rockets will think that the other rocket is moving slower and is alot smaller.
You can just google this because this is what litterally everyone asks when they first find out what relativity is.
If you think this is all ogabooga you can look at for example muon relativity problem. Which confirms all this.

check my tripple dubs

Special relativity is very much stolen. I dont know who much work he did on general relativity though. I know he asks mathematician to solve a lot of the problems.

I see… starts at ~5:09:30

(checked)

The scenario applies for any velocity > speedOfLight/2 so it's not that relevant. correct me if I'm wrong
Also I assume you meant to say that it can't in the first sentence.

I am not interested in observation, but in factual position. Let's completely ignore the "seeing" part. Are they supposed to be physically at the same spot in 0.5 year time?

Einstein himself was never much of a mathematician, he was supposedly always skipping the math classes in college. His relativity was more of a cleanup of what was done before and used fairly non-mathy reasoning; then Minkowski reworked it more formally. Maybe that's the one you mean.

to be honest, I don't get what's the problem, with the ships meeting at half a year, if, it's photons, yeah they'll meet at the center in half a year

They invent hypostatic concepts and treat them as if they were objects:

Don't exist. Time is just a measurement. It exists (or doesn't) the same as length. Gravity (and any noun ending it -ity) has no real discoverable referent. Gravitons might, though.

It's called abstract thinking.

It's called ad hoc solutions.

Tell me, what do you think this means?

...

Go away sinead

I've broken the speed of light in my 4-banger shit box mutiple times on the interstate.
I'm in the 5th dimension right now shoving my dick in Einstein's ass.
LOLZ Jewish science.

That is my favorite Red Ice radio episode.

The plagiarist piece of shit Einstein is another Jew shoved down your throat by the media.

His reasoning is flawed because he is erroneously assuming that the planets and the space ships are in the same inertial frame of reference when they are not.

Math user here, I actually looked into relativity because a few years back some other user said "Einstein was wrong, relativity is bullshit", in addition to science being interesting to me. I can answer quite a bit but there's some important preliminary information you'll need. Also the tl;dr version is that Einstein has two different theories of relativity; "special" and "general"; special relativity is a direct consequence of classical physics and it's mathematically based on Pythagoras, basic calculus, and a simple idea about electromagnetism; whereas General relativity is it's own thing based on abstract geometry, mathematical 'dimensions' and some very high level calculus. I can vouch for special relativity but general relativity is currently beyond me.

First off, the word 'relativity' in this context is referring to comparing co-ordinate systems relative to one another. If I have a co-ordinate system set up stationary on the ground, and a different system on a moving truck, then the basic idea of relativity is "How do I translate measurements in the stationary co-ordinates into measurements in the moving co-ordinates".

Now because Newton's laws are based on an objects acceleration, the transformations are very simple when the co-ordinates have zero acceleration (moving at constant speed, and being stationary is also constant speed). For reference, calculations involving Newton's laws only give a correct answer if they are made from a co-ordinate system that is NOT accelerating, so we call a non-accelerating co-ordinate system and "inertial reference frame".

Anyway, for making transformations between inertial reference frames moving relative to each other, we can use the very simple Galilean transformations and have everything work out just fine. However, these transformations we worked out long before we had investigated electromagnetism (EM). EM changes everything and is also Holla Forums approved given that you need to know an entire phonebook of Western names to understand it, it's really quite wonderful.

The summary of EM is that we start with some simple ideas about how electric charges and magnetic fields can produce Newtonian forces, from those equations we can combine them and use calculus to create some higher level equations called "Maxwell's equations", which are analogous to Newton's laws of motion. Then using Maxwell's equations we can predict the existence of electromagnetic waves (light, as well as x-rays, gamma rays and other rays). BUT, in predicting the existence of EM waves, the equations also predict that the speed of light in a vacuum is determined entirely by two physical constants; one constant governs the strength of electric fields and the other governs the strength of magnetic fields (in exactly the same way that Newton's constant governs the strength of gravitational fields).

Now here's the interesting bit, if we accept that Maxwell's equations are true, and furthermore that they're true in every inertial reference frame, then we need to alter our co-ordinate transformations so that the speed of light in a vacuum (c) is always constant. With a little bit of algebra we can replace the Galilean transformation with the Lorentz transformation (which simplifies to the Galilean one at low speeds), and in doing so both Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations work in every inertial reference frame.

(1/2)

(2/2)
Here's where it gets tricky to explain without using maths; Assuming that Maxwell's equations hold in every inertial reference frame is equivalent to assuming that c is constant; so when we consider how frames moving relative to one another will measure the movement of light, in order to make light constant the faster moving frame will measure a shorter time taken and a shorter distance travelled compared to the slower frame. BUT, the two measurements can be transformed into eachother using the lorentz transformations.

Finally, taking the lorentz transformation into account, when we try to transfrom Newtonian forces, we need to transform the mass so that faster objects have more mass, and as a consequence of the equation, traveling at the speed of light would require a division by zero in the equation, which makes no sense and so we can say it's impossible for mass to travel at c (or faster, since th same equation predicts an imaginary mass at that point).

Alternatively, we can inert the equation for relativistic mass and get an equation for relativistic energy, which says that the energy required to accelerate a mass close to c grows infinitely large, preventing you from ever reaching c. That's special relativity. As for General relativity I don't know enough yet.

second tl;dr learn about the maths behind Maxwell's equations and special relativity on your own, it's not hard but it'll take some time.
—
As for the video, his first mistake was assuming mass could travel at c, that's a big no. But more importantly he starts off saying the distance between the planets is 1 light year, then says that half the distance is also 1 light year, implying that the total distance is 2 light years, he then says that 1 = 2 which is false, and then goes onto blame special relativity for his inability to count.

Plasma Cosmology is real. Bing bang is a lie, a scientism of the creation out of nothing myth from jews and their dead kike on a stick.

Even NASA is having to push out propaganda photoshopping auroras onto old pics of saturn, and even Jupiter:

sli.mg/a/wH1hsr

They're starting to admit parts of the Electrical Universe hypothesis are true, such as comets being hard dry rocks with electrical charge differentials creating their UV glow as they near the sun like how charged particles make aurora borealis glow (same with comet tails), they're not "dirty snowballs" melted by heat. We've been to a few now and have found no "vents" of "water vapor". All their narratives are bullshit, but if you go against the cult they pull your funding and time on big telescopes. So, Astronomy, just like History is mostly bogus.

youtube.com/watch?v=34wtt2EUToo

So tell me, my autistic spergy lad, what motivation is there to completely fabricate all of this information?

Let me explain how relativity is bullshit.

First, let's consider a geostationary satellite.

In the frame of reference of BOTH the satellite and planet the each the other is stationary and not moving. In this frame of reference they two objects should gravitate towards each other. Ah, but in the fixed frame of the universe itself the satellite is in a continual fall towards the planet and thus does not fall directly towards the planet's surface.

So, the idea that frames of reference are relative is completely batshit insanity, a scientism of the "moral relativity" that jews and their atheist pawns espouse.

No matter how you dress it up to disguise the simple fact that relativity is wrong, you'll find it has huge gaping holes like this all over the place that even a laymen can understand.

The problem isn't with relativity (which wasn't "discovered" by Einstein), it's that he was a massive rip-off merchant who failed to even bother giving a single citation for the many great minds that he was stealing from, particularly Poincaré and Lorentz. His 1905 papers wouldn't even be allowed in journals today and it's a minor mystery as to how they were ever accepted in the first place. (I cannot stress enough how bizarre or egomaniacal it is to submit a scientific paper with no references, but that is precisely what Einstein did). His name was later attached to discoveries he had nothing to do with in lieu of the men he stole from such that unless you're a physicist or a mathematician, you probably don't know who the hell Lorentz or Poincaré are.

Apologists will tend to nitpick or say he was a "systemiser" but it's all bullshit. It has no relevance to the premeditated lack of citations. He knew exactly what he was doing and there's no excuse for it. Rip-off merchant.

The key world is inertial, an satelite in orbit is in fact accelerating, so you already fucked up, second, according to you not even the classical Galilean transformation should work
Also sage because this is not Holla Forums

How do you create a power differential between the ruling class and the public?

One is to invent great shit that no one else can think of… Failing that you just put out propaganda dressed up as science and teach them the populace the wrong crap.

It's WAY FUCKING CHEAPER to photoshop a pic of Jupiter than to fly their 747 bearing telescope up beyond the clouds and take another "hubble" image. The info in that sli.mg link is taken DIRECTLY from their own website, showing cold hard evidence they try to pass photoshop shit off as real.

It's WAY FUCKING CHEAPER to build sets that are scale models of the Moon, and then fake the moon landing, making network TV broadcast from recording a projection screen even as they complain that they would rather pickup the TV / radio transmission and rebroadcast it themselves – NASA prevented them from doing this on the grounds of "national security" and only permitted the recording of a screen showing a movie that was previously created.

You can take MILLIONS or BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in public funds and then just put a propaganda team on it that costs what, a few hundred thousand at most? The public is so stupid they'll defend NASA to the death rather than question anything, so you're good to go.

This video explains why the "earth" seen in "earthrise" Apollo mission shots looks like it's just a small fragment of earth. It was actually just a low earth orbit shot taken through the window of the capsule with the lights turned off and a curved cutout placed in front of the screen. You can see the astronaut in front of the window and the setup near the end of the shot. This reel wasn't supposed to get out, they've destroyed all the original Apollo "moon landing" footage, but someone inside got the flick out.

Go and look back at the pictures they published and see for yourself – that's not the whole earth, it's just a round cropped image of earth. There are zero pictures of the entire earth, there are only composites stitched together and sold to you as from a distant probe.

Carl Sagan waxed poetically over a literal indistinguishable spec of blue dust in a sunbeam, and idiots praised it. (hey, why not an actual series of shots of earth as you get further away? They don't exist, dust is WAY cheaper).

Also, the bullshit excuse, "But we don't know why they're doing shit so it can't be happening" is stale bait, friend.

So, how can a satellite that is stationary and a planet that is stationary in that frame of reference have any inertia? It breaks the damn mathematics, fool. Just like a division by zero error.

no it doesn't to change to an accelarating frame of reference you have to use pseudo forces, such as centrifugal forces

try again.

And to have to create inertia-less centrifugal forces means the mathematics doesn't represent reality at all, so by that standard relativity is no different than inventing a new model of the cosmos where forces that don't really exist suddenly exist.

The truth is that relativity does not represent reality, it's bogus that stationary objects would emanate such repulsive forces — UNLESS YOU ARE TALKING MAGNETISM. So, there you have it. Relativity is the smoke screen for plasma cosmology, just as I said initially.

Einstein's contribution was scientific ''relativism", literally moving the goalposts away from scientific method into a new "listen and believe" paradigm of kike led brainwashing.

user give it up, it's painfully obvious that user knows much more on the subject than you do

You are arguing about a mathematician about maths, that's like trying to tell a botanist he's wrong for calling a tree a tree and a plant a plant

kek. That guy is either a god tier troll, or severely mentally deranged. You are going to need a better source than a flat earth proponent if you want to upheave mainstream physics.

This guy is a bullshit artist. We did have the technical capacity to create the film at the time. Just do a search on 1960's era video processing systems, it's not that hard to find.

The guy starts with 33mm recording because that's what he's used to but 8mm reels were used and had much longer reels. Additionally, if the film is slowed down by 2x (for the "slow mo" low "gravity") it fits the allotted time of a single reel. Note that lower gravity shouldn't make you move laterally any slower, and yet that's what the footage shows, universal slow movement.

Nice try. Have a video of NASA "space walks" that were really done in Houston's Johnson's Space Center's swimming pool, as evidenced by the bubbles in "space".

You really just figured this out? Inertial frames don't rotate.

Sinead fuck off you crackwhore kike

relativity is wrong on it's own terms, it needs ever more theories to hold it together

Electric Universe, look it up

...

(2)

no, I'm arguing with a mathemetician about physics. It's like me telling a mathematician that there is a better physical explanation for the very same mathematics – magnetic forces rather than "gravity" and them arguing that "The Big Bang is Real! THIS DIVIDE BY ZERO MEANS BLACK HOLES ARE REAL" – When I point out that there are no "gravity lensing" around the stars that speed up their orbits near the galactic center, as there should be if black holes were real, then they just point to the divide by zero and say I'm lying and that math is perfect.

When I say that "Einstein rings" are all blue shifted, and that big bang cosmology of warped gravity lensing says gravity should not shift light's spectra, but that it can be easily explained by the diffraction of light passing through the differential between intergalactic space and a more dense galaxy's hydrogen envelope – like a spherical glass lens refracts light in air, the academic fool defends the bogus "warped space" model even though their "big bang" model doesn't even account for the basic optical properties of light and refraction.

Clearly, I know far more about the subject than the mathematician, as they fail to see that EM is the field that can generate both repulsive (centrifugal) and attractive (centripetal) forces without inventing new hypothetical fields don't reflect reality.

user why should I bother to look up your theory if you can't even give me a half ass explanation of it

lad………………………………..

You're implicitly using Newton's laws in your reasoning while forgetting that you can't directly apply those same laws to accelerating reference frames, so you will always reach a contradiction since you fucked up.

Consider the following: a ball lies at rest in a stationary airplane, the plane accelerates down the runway; before taking off and in the reference frame of the plane, the ball is accelerated towards the back of the plane despite no force acting on it

Q) why is Newton's laws suddenly wrong?
A) they're not, they're simply being used in the wrong reference frame, if you switch to the frame of the ground you see that the ball stays still while the floor of the plane accelerates underneath it.

Conclusion) You fucked up because you don't understand the maths you're dealing with. Switching reference frames doesn't change reality, it changes the calculations you can make, the entire idea of special relativity is to provide transformations that allow calculations involving Newton's laws and Maxwell's equations.

As for moral relativity that actually is a Jewish misinterpretation, special relativity does not imply that there's no objective reality and that all viewpoints are equal, it implies that if you know how to transform ideas from one viewpoint to another, then you can analyze those transformed ideas with different viewpoints. It's a very Holla Forums idea given that we routinely transform the idea that "multiculti is a good thing" into "mutliculturalism is genocide".

You're putting bait in my mouth. I said nothing of the sort.

youtube.com/watch?v=4pdK_IwnYYY

No, you fucked up when you failed to factor in how electromagnetism affects Newtonian motion.

Go tell a refrigerator magnet that it should accellerate towards the earth. This is what you're doing.

All of your prior posts have been about inertial reference frames, and given the speeds involved we're hardly even getting into special relativity, so why the fuck are you suddenly ranting about general relativity? I said it myself I don't know enough about that to even try explaining it let alone defend it.

You never even mentioned electromagnetism in your post, and it has nothing to do with the idea of changing reference frames UNLESS we are talking about the Lorentz transformation which I've already explained you disingenuous fuck.

F= GMm/(r^2)
your magnet is experiencing a accelerating force from gravity in addition to the much stronger magnetic force opposing it, what the fuck is your point and what does that have to do with changing reference frames?

Do you really not see any irony in this statement?

Shut the fuck up and address his points if you're going to argue. I know I'm >>>>(1), but this is an interesting discussion that I'm lurking.

Here's a video completely debunking this "film expert" citing the technology of the time which did exist and could make a continuous film the same length as the landing footage.

no, u.

See:

Can you explain to me what inertia is and what a field is? These concepts always confuse me. They would just say this shit in physics class without explaining what they actually are. Sorry i'm a retarded neet who doesn't understand maths so you have to talk to me like a child. Maybe i'm just too stupid to understand these things.

40:25 embed related sums it up in just a few minutes. Sorry no webm.

Sci-fag here.

I'm not going into detail, but tl: dr;

However, it all checks out in experiments. Clearly these guys are not sci-fags…

Time does not exist when travelling at c. Go figure…

Look up time dilation.

Can you direct me to an Electric Universe source that actually puts some equations down? Usually with alt physics guys its "the idea is sound". Lots of ideas sound nice.

How is it possible to jew science?

Erm….. Observed relative speed.

I shouldn't have laughed at this but my sides perceive the rest of me to not be moving, they're moving so fast

Also listen to math-user, or any other sci-fags or whatever here. It should be clear to most people who have really looked into this and have a basic understanding of these concepts.

Not an argument!

...

Here's a good explanation.

Replace Kabbalah with science.

I like when he says we need explanations not descriptions. That seems to be at the root of the problem. Though I don't understand anything he says.

The way I see it is that science is based in a certain philosophy and a certain metaphysics and einstein subverted this foundation.

Most of the math used for relativity was formulated by Bernhard Riemann, of the greatest who ever lived.

Feel free to belive in flat earth or whatever bullshit you want, but OP asked a question and I'm not going to pretend I'm a retard just because of muh Jew. Who came up with the theories doesn't matter… it's 2016, and no one has disproved them. A lot of evidence supports them.

Pretty much all of the mathematical framework for relativity was derived by those other than Einstein.

Einstein just decided to send physics research in the western world into a cul-de-sac type illusion, from which there was no possible advancement.

Alright goys, this is a simple problem if you just stop and give it honest consideration.

I'm not here to sell you free energy, flat earth, or the electric universe. I'm simply putting forth the argument that jews have subverted the direction of physics for their own social and political ends just like they have everything else, with simple rhetorical tricks.

Einstein's sole contribution in Special Relativity is the suggestion that light is the invariant factor in an inertial system. Thats it. He took previously existing math, in the form most recently proposed by Lorentz, and just said it meant something different than everyone else was saying. This is not a tinfoil theory, it is well documented history.

In reality, this is an inherently unempirical and unscientific proposition. We are limited by the fact that light is both the primary phenomenon that we use to observe things, and the fastest thing that we can use for observation. This is normally not a problem when you are watching a baseball fly through the air, but it requires some thought when you are thinking about watching light bounce around.

Take the typical scenario of a man on a train car moving at v, shining a flashlight forward, being observed by someone standing on the ground as the train passes. To the man on the train, the light beam exits the flashlight forward at the speed of light c, hits the front wall of the train, and reflects back to him at speed c. Nothing strange by any system of relativity.

To the man on the ground, forget Einstein for a moment and suppose that the light goes forward at a speed of c+v just like one would see if the man on the train threw a baseball forward. In this case, we can not actually tell the instant that the light reaches the forward wall of the train, but rather only when the reflected light reaches our observer. So say we had a detector set up that would magically, instantly communicate to our observer when the light reflected back to the original source. The light would travel from the wall of the train to the detector at c-v, and we would have measured the time taken for the light to travel from flashlight to the wall, back to the detector. The best we can observe is therefore the average velocity, ((c+v)+(c-v)/2 = 2c/2 = c.

No matter what you do, you can only measure the average velocity because light is the limiting factor for our measurements. Einstein proposes that somehow, rather than a mere observational limitation, this tells us that the entire universe is changing based on some mystical knowledge of who is observing the light.

Every major physicist of the time disagreed with Einstein. There is zero empirical support for Einstein's idea, and by its fundamental nature it is impossible to test.

You see, the entire "FTL implies Time Travel" thing is an illusion.

FTL doesn't violate causality, it violates PERCEIVED Causality.

Because it changes the order that photons arrive at the observer.

Relativity is sort of the same tactic as the whole "Truth is subjective" crowd.

It's a direct attack on logic, reason, observation, etc…

Yeah just like no has disproved the holocaust and global warming. Your game is up Chaim get the fuck out of here.

This is the main point of jew involvement in physics. They attack the nature of causality and perception, and use it to sell their idea that we are all useless cattle existing for nothing better than consuming the shit they shove down our throats.

I like the part about how people think that Einstein invented the Atom bomb….

And the Quantum mechanical theories that underlie the principles of the atom bomb are irreconcilable with relativity.

It's ironic, AND Tragic.

They attack the nature of causality and perception, and use it to sell their idea that we are all useless cattle existing for nothing better than consuming the shit they shove down our throats.

Sorry, that should have been greentexted.

It is different because most of us (who took science degrees) deduced these formulas mathematically from simple hypothesis; i personally haven't noticed something "suspicious" about these formulations, on the contrary this equations make sense.

If there were a superior theory, we would gladly join into it. The relativistic formulas makes mathematical sense and is the "Best" explanation yet.

I don't know if there is a better model, there probably is, but someone must make the calculations and prove that every single fact matches the new model, and it predicts the outcome of new future experiments.

This is not about who's jewing who but to perfect the current knowledge.

holohoax and all that corresponds to "history" which pretty much is written by the winners, although i guess that at the end, truth shall prevail.

What if I told you that the Shapiro delay was caused by the increasing density of hydrogen nearer to the sun, and it's refractive index upon radio waves?

That is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly ignorant. The Lorentz transformation is an observational adjustment based on the null result of Michelson-Morley, and part of an entirely different system. Einstein's proposition is designed to confuse and distract you, and produces nothing tangible or useful.

You didn't deduce these formulas mathematically from simple hypothesis; If you took a science degree, you were taught the Lorentz transformation as part of Special Relativity after a brief (and historically incomplete) explanation of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Wilhelm Reich also, in part, "broke" Einstein's relativity too.

In saying that though, Relativity is still a damn fine model and incredibly practical.

What if I told you that "Gravitational Lensing" was actually a refraction effect of the hydrogen envelope that surrounds all stars?

Relativity works. If it didn't, your GPS wouldn't work either.

What's with all the religion and anti-science threads today? Go back to your churches and stop spamming this board with your nonsense.

Did you know that calculating the position in the sky of Venus works if you use the Ptolemaic system but it is also wrong.

Relativistic frame transformations is not used in GPS

Source:

tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996papers/Vol 28_16.pdf

*are not

Yes, but until someone came up with a better explanation, it was the best one and it worked to make certain predictions. Same with relativity.

Dude, that paper is 20 years old. GPS technology has evolved a lot since.

And it still doesn't use relativity.

Except it does now.

astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Like the other guy said, it doesn't mean relativity is perfect. But it's quite obvious it can be used to make reliable predictions, and to a much higher degree than other theories.

Want to know what's so funny? If Albert Einstein had been named "Albert Wilson" and was the whitest, most protestant guy the world has ever seen, you guys would consider it a sin to question him (which it isn't, all science must be questioned, it's how it works). But you guys reject it on no basis other than "KIKE SCIENCE" and the alternatives you offer are inferior.

Never mind that Planck was the one who came up with it, Einstein just clarified it.

There were two sources in your link:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Time_Kinematic

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_GPS

Relativity is mentioned in neither.

Troll harder, Relativist JIDF.

...

You typing a new "Source" out right now?

Fuck you are stupid. If you were even casually familiar with the topic you would say Lorentz, but you're obviously fucking stupid.

BTW Planck wrote a paper on how Einstein's derivation of mass-energy equivalence was circular reasoning and invalid, and cast his support with the e=(3mc^2)/4 crowd.

And we're done. Go worship your dead kike on a stick.

Wow, what are the odds?

I'm a panentheist, actually.

wew, you just went full r/atheism.

It's possible Albert Einstein was a plagiarist. It's likely.

Einstein was a notorious Jewish shill, and called nationalism a disease.

But "his" work, if it really is his, and some of it probably really is, is sound.

Physics doesn't lie. That doesn't mean relativity can't be disproven as we learn more though. Physics only gets more and more refined as it goes on. We used to think Newton's laws were the end-all-be-all but that's not the case anymore

Sage for stupid well poisoning thread.

How is it sound? There is absolutely nothing empirical to support it, and it can't be verified experimentally by definition.

He doesn't take into account that time is relative as well

"Someone on weevs podcast" vs millions of physicists, scientists, engineers over the last 120 years. Yeah I know who I will trust.

Or wait, better yet, actually LEARN about these things so you can evaluate the claims made by physicists yourself. I have a degree in physics, that's what I did, but anyone can learn the necessary math, physics, logic, etc in their spare time.

I don't give a shit about anyone's opinion on science until they can demonstrate that they actually have knowledge in these areas. Science isnt fucking politics

The (((Media))) still attributes the Atom bomb to Einstein, despite the fact that his physics is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics (Which is what an atom bomb is made of)

Not only that, he had literally nothing to do with the atom bomb, the theories surrounding it, the construction and research of it (manhattan project), etc…

His literal ENTIRE contribution to the Atom bomb, was a letter he wrote to the then president; and in this letter, no math or science was present.

The false attribution of GPS and Atom bombs to Einstein is a cult of personality that reduces scientific "Common Knowledge" to a media created spectacle.

And further, infiltrates the peer review process, to silence any investigation into Non-Propagandized science.

It's the same thing as you see on the chans, i'm afraid… they use the same tactics everywhere, and they have infiltrated your scientific communities and processes to hide some areas that they don't want you goy to have access to.

Relativity is crypto, man.

Results of general relativity are easily demonstrable in the real world. Not only that, GPS would not be accurate without general relativity.

Also, we've detected gravitational waves from binary star systems, consistent with general relativity

General relativity is sound. If you want to learn more I suggest you read an undergraduate general relativity textbook. The math isn't incredibly hard

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN
A RELATIVITY BOT

inb4 (((shut it down.)))

Shit answer bud. GPS doesn't use relativity, but I can tell you haven't put much thought beyond reading maybe a wiki article into the topic. Go check out that paper posted earlier, or even better try building your own GPS receiver and finding out for yourself.

Go read the LIGO paper before running your mouth like a redditor. Displacement of a laser in a very large MM interferometer. That in no way speaks to GR. In fact, it more likely puts us back to re-examining late 19th century ideas that were being tested before Einstein shut the question down without an empirical answer.

BTW I don't know about you, but I actually did go to school for physics and work in a related field.

Indeed.

Couldn't it just be that Special and General relativity are right but Einstein was a plagiarist?

As soon as they produce even a single shred of useful or verifiable result, then they can be considered more than jewish poison.

I have a feeling we will be waiting for a while before that happens.

No.

Yes, and not a very good one.

And how exactly does GPS not rely on general relativity?

Clocks are synchronized every ninety minutes (One LEO orbit)

Relativity is irrelevant.

I like you. Rare to see a goy disrespecting einstein alongside me.

You're a faggot, that is a stupid question, and there is a paper that explains it in sufficient detail earlier in this thread. Like I said, you don't know what you are talking about. Shill or redditor, just get the fuck out of here.

Well met.

As a Scientist by principle, I abhor the occlusion of truth for the profit of psychopaths.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

see

Inertia is another name for momentum, you can think of it as a way of measuring how difficult it is to change the direction an object is moving (because you change an object's motion by applying a force to it, and that force changes it's momentum).

Mathematically, inertia = momentum = mass * velocity
and force = mass * acceleration
so objects with a large mass or high velocity (or both) require large forces to have their direction of movement changed. This is why objects you can hold in your hand can speed up quickly by throwing them, ten slow down quickly due to air resistance; whereas trucks and trains take a while to speed up and can't stop instantly.
—
Fields are a bit more difficult to describe mathematically, they're used to describe how gravity, electricity, and magnetism can affect have long range effects without physical contact (like how magnets can repel or attract each other without touching).

You can imagine fields behaving in the same way that being in water is different to being in air. Specifically, it's easy to run on the ground when you're surrounded by air (provided you're not a fat neet), but it's incredibly difficult to run or even walk when completely surrounded by water. The reason being that water is denser than air, there's more mass in water for you to bump into and loose momentum to than there is in air, so water slows you down more.

So in a "water field" you interact with the mass of the water, in an "air field" you still interact with mass but less so, because there's less mass In an electric field you can interact with electrically charged objects if you yourself are charged, and in a magnetic field you interact if you're charged and moving. And in a gravitational field, anything with mass can interact with anything else that has mass.

The problem lies in visualizing, because "water fields" can quite easily be seen, but in electromagnetic and gravitational fields, the field itself is invisible, more invisible than an "air field" because they're a property of space itself, instead of the air or water particles.

pics related are: a connection between force and momentum, which is part of it's significance to classical mechanics. And visualizations of fields using vectors(math arrows).

Like I said

Black holes, pulsars, LIGO, give me a fucking break.

Einstein was a mathematician, not a scientist. He was an idiot on that regard, too. Do you want to trust a fool who created absolutely nothing or Tesla, the man who made most of our modern world? Tesla's idea is Ether, a medium. Most of what Einstein talks about is space and time, both things non-existent. Most of what he speaks of relies on the concept that there is nothing greater than the speed of light. That's stupid. If you want to learn about the true nature of the universe simply search up "Uncovering the missing secrets of magnetism".

Yeah you didn't read that one either, and you are spreading your ignorance of how actual GPS systems work far and wide. No matter how much you throw around wikipedia articles and thought-experiment fantasies, they don't use relativistic corrections and they don't need to.

The precession of mercury isn't caused by "Frame Dragging"

It is caused by the center of the sun NOT being the center of all planetary orbits.

Everything in the solar system orbits the solar barycenter, not the center of the sun.

And that's one.

Einstein's sole purpose was to promote zionism in America. Before him gentile physicists openly claimed that jews produced no genius in the field.

In the end he got demoralized and did not support zionism anymore. Regardless, this jewish plot worked.

And obscure teslas discoveries?

Black holes is what happens when a mass so large no longer has any kind of existential mass or magnitude. It is the same concept that a nuclear explosion works off of. We work off of either critical mass or implosion i.e proximity. A black hole is a super-sink of pure inertia.

It's quite interesting to me, how much Einstein looked like Teslas old "Friend"… Samuel Clemens, a.k.a. Mark Twain.

It's perfectly legitimate to question whether or not Einstein was a plagiarizing Kike. But to suggest that there's an insanely expensive 100 year old conspiracy to hide the truth about physics that less than 1% of the population understands is just fucking idiotic. Not to mention the risk that it would entail if they ever got caught and that it would get more and more expensive to hide as technology became more advanced.

Do you faggots honestly expect me to believe that Kikes would waste that many shekels when instead they could just take on of theirs that plagiarized a goy and prop him up as the smartest fucker to ever live?

What about my comment made you think you need to explain what a black hole is? Come on now.

Actually a better way to understand the situation is from electromagnetism; light is simply an excitation of the electromagnetic field that exists independent of who observes it. It's not a contradiction that people moving at different speeds measure the same value of c because light isn't moving with the spaceship, it's simply the EM field oscillating between Electricity and Magnetism.

The real problem is when you have a large spaceship traveling at say .8c, and inside that spaceship you have a smaller spaceship traveling relative to the spaceship at .7c in the same direction, then our only option is to roll with the lorentz transformation's result that a stationary observer will only see the smaller spaceship traveling at .96c instead of 1.5c

Thing is, the Lorentz transformation isn't jewish, and neither is the electromagnetism that lead to it, so Holla Forums doesn't have any reason to reject it beyond the very valid proposition that we can't directly test such a situation.

It's more about the fact that it's easier to keep knowledge to yourself. Simply feed someone else lies until they believe it and they will repeat that lie until it is true. Those who do know do not fall for the lies and can teach the truth. If people that aren't part of the in-group know the truth it would not matter. They can be labeled as idiots and lunatics. Keeping truth out there and reachable is easier than keeping it out of reach. You just have to dump much more useless information than useful.

I'm simply pointing out that Einstein's entire proposal is a clever jewish trick that takes advantage of an observational restriction. People put religious faith in this nonsense and don't realize that it is a simple rhetorical trick.

Bohr and his talmudic friends did something similar with QM and have people chasing all sorts of nonsense that can't be verified by definition, yet dumb goy make careers scribbling numbers down about it.

It isn't insanely expensive nor difficult to convince goy that your clever-silly idea about untestable thought experiments is totally real and get them to sit around wasting time jerking off about it.

You really think someone would do that?

Lie about science to gain an advantage?

That works with history and other fields and they are definitely doing that.

But in science something has to be verified empirically and as technology improves it would be hard as balls to keep a lie like Special and General relativity going. Not to mention the risk of outrage if the goyim over found out.

With the general populace yes you're correct but 140 IQ+ whites study this shit their entire lives and have empirical evidence.

What super technology are they hiding in Israel that they were able to create but deny us by lying about fucking relativity?

If you want to know if there's a good chance that something is bullshit or not you have to look at Motivation, potential gain, cost, and risk. And I can't see any good reason to lie about relativity based on any of those matrices.

Einstein just being a fucking plagiarist makes vastly more sense.

There would be no outrage. People will slowly find out the truth but by the time that happens the in-group would already know much more about it than the out-group. The thing about Einstein's "theories" is that it's a mind-virus. Everything is explained not by real observation but by math, and if something does not fit in you just make something up so everything fits in.

Whatever they could discover.

Yet they don't have any. Really makes you think.

Again
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practical_Applications_of_special_relativity

Redditor or shill, GTFO.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

You know, both Martin Luther and Adolf Hitler commented that jews frequently ignore what you have already talked about and repeat the same points and arguments as if they are presenting them for the first time. You are doing that, you know.

How many times do I have to disprove this per thread?

GPS doesn't use Relativity.

These are all things that don't prove anything. At all. These all rely on the idea that everything exists in magnitude. It doesn't explain magnetism and it doesn't explain gravity.

who is this goy

You can apply this to every speed but its only really relevant if you go 10% of c or more.
yes
The "seeing" part is the whole thing with special relativity. Since the c is always constant the 3 diffrenet observers will see 3 different thing. And that it is what is so beautiful/fucked up about special relativity. The maths is super easy but the results is wierd af

You are taking in to a count the time dilation/length contraction
Michelson-Morley interferometer, muon special relativity problem to name a few

Fucking Christ, the orbit of every planetary body is an ellipse.

It's fucking Kepler's Law you faggots. Why do people keep spouting this wrong shit?

It's the combination of both. Newtonian mechanics gives results which don't fit the observed values, relativistic correction fixes that.

Don't forget the induced electric dipole redshift-a redshift component which is being overlooked in astro-calculations. All mainstream astronomers process is regular velocity redshift. They don't get the full picture, what came out of it is worped out view on reality and "proof" of ever accelerating galaxies thus big bang.

You dont have a clue, user.
Time dont exist at all.
Time is an illusion, caused with changes on 2-D matrix simulation.

It is. Einstein is a fraud.
Like Christ is a fraud. Same thing.

Yes. THIS happened to our science. Jews compromise it.

This isn't Reddit, fag. We're not going to listen to your shit just because you know we hate Jews.

You got this all wrong, fusking Einstein compromise western logic to wrong way.
Try to think about pixels on the flat LCD screen. How fast is one pixel able to move around? Yes, one quanta per one refresh of the screen. That is speed of light. Or, if you want, one cycle of the processor, same thing.
See? thinking of relativity is same as thinking about on screen presentation of processor generated simulation on your LCD screen. Nothin more, nothin less.
Jews knows that. Therefore, they keep things complicated tor the goys.

Do you want to suck my coock, Jew?
Well, you can suck some goat's coock, not mine.
So FUCK OFF and FUCK YOURSELVE down in Tell Aviv, Jewish scum rat, ok?

Lads believing anything (((Einstein))) or the (((media))) says… You should know better.

Read these books to redpill yourself

Relativity Reexamined - Leon Brouillon (Nobel Prize Winner)

Causality, Electromagnetic Induction, and Gravitation (Oleg Jefimenko, Prof of Physics)

Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist - (Christopher Jon Bjerknes)

The substituion of the Gallean transformation for the Lorentz transformation was a disaster

Eric Dollard will set you down the right path based on Steinmetz, Heaviside and Tesla (the people who actually built the modern world):

youtube.com/watch?v=pNstg-HHneY

youtube.com/watch?v=f6UwdtHq-v4

Then if you want really salty tears look into (((Friedman))) and the perversion of (((Economics))).

fee.org/articles/capitalism-and-the-jews/

Debunking Economics - Steve Keen

You just confirm the rule that shills always project.

Michelson-Morley isn't about Special Relativity in any capacity, it tests the question of an ether wind on the surface of the earth. The results were interpreted very differently by physicists for decades.

The subatomic particle question addresses something else entirely, namely the fact that light clearly, experimentally does have a natural speed from a stationary source, and obviously can not accelerate something to a speed faster that it is traveling.

As far as time dilation and length contraction, that is the whole point; Is it more reasonable to assume that everything else changes in an imperceptible way to accommodate Einstein's idea, or that we have a simple observational limit in our system? There is no compelling reason to believe in the absurdity of Einstein's proposition.

This is completely incoherent and doesn't have anything to do with any of this.

Stephen Crothers summarizes it well.
sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/
youtube.com/watch?v=wRsGPq77X0Q
Science exists now to futher the programming.
Atom. This symbol. Notice the star of kike inside.
youtube.com/watch?v=GNCP-IsM-Ic

I like this bad goyium.

QUANTUM BULLSHIT - This one will blow your fuckin' mind…………………..
youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc
also, a huge waste of time and money. Tesla said it best.

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. Nikola Tesla

And non-stationary source, and any source.
Changes in lengths / clock speed are imperceptible?

Newtonian physics are models based upon physical observations. Relativity, and most of modern physics, are assumptions about physical observations based on models.

Remember Epicycles. When pop-sci celebs talk about fantastic and seemingly supernatural phenomena based upon their infallible mathematical models, you should be skeptical. The cat isn't dead because you didn't see it? It's astrology in a lab coat.

They cannot entertain the possibility that there could be fundamentally misguided assumptions.

Check out The Logical Leap.

No, it is not experimentally verifiable that it is the same from a moving source. Thats the point.

False. Gamma rays from decay, e.g. pion decay with the pions moving near light speed.

Explain to me specifically how this verifies that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source. How is it observed and determined?

Its true that Michelson-Morley isn't about special relativity but their findings lead to Lorentz transformation.
You'll have to show me some maths if you are going to convince me. We have a set of equations that accurately describes the world.
That doesnt mean that relativity is 100% correct and i personally i feel like the standard model confirms that. But it's good enough for the moment just like newtonian mechanics is was enough for a long time.

Tell me about Tesla, Holla Forums.

He stole the idea from us, then the Communists heavily promoted him.

He's a meme.

Show you math of what? Lorentz transformations are a proposed solution to an ether model attempting to account for the presumed motion of the earth. Whether or not Einstein is right, it is mathematically equivalent in this case. Einstein's proposition implies an untestable break in causality, and is by far the more convoluted interpretation with no compelling evidence to believe it..

Nobody is advocating the abandonment of Lorentz' work. Einstein's interpretation of Lorentz' work is silly jewish thought magic that has no useful or tangible product.

Its just like quantum mechanics and the copenhagen interpretation; Quantum mechanics is the legitimate study of observational limitations at the smallest accessible sizes. Copenhagen makes no functional changes to the system, but invokes untestable magic as the explanation for why things behave as they do.

Einstein did very little.

He wrote a letter to the president to advocate the construction of a top-secret project to facilitate the mass destruction of human beings. A Holocaust, if you will.

WHY DOES HE BUILD THE COILS

...

>>>/x/

...

Try etherphysics.net for some interesting maths but I'm still not convinced by them.

Also see the books I listed above,
for the real truth (electromagnetic retardation results in the time discrepencies)

You're a dumb motherfucker. Lorentz' math is not the question here, and yet you keep pretending like it is.

So they are replacing the vacuum state with an ether and trying to get the speed of light relative to the ether? Sounds really stupid when you have things like muons that pretty much confirms that galilean transformation doesnt hold up when you are close to c

It very much is it's just that you dont understand it.
Look at OP's video and tell me how lorentz transformation is not in question here.

Because Lorentz doesn't propose nor necessitate the absurdity in the OP. That is Einstein's whole proposition. Are you dishonest or just poorly informed on this topic?

What? The video is just some guy that is bullshiting about what consequences he thinks special relativity has. But if you know how lorentz transformation works you can explain why the video is bullshit.

The fundamental difference that both jefimenko and Thornhill state is that Maxwell's idea of self replicating waves is incorrect instead the waves act like waves generated by dropping a pebble in water, they are not self generated but instead the result of a disturbance propogating in the ether

Yes, i'm aware of what conclusions they made from maxwell's equations. But it seems very silly when you have things like special relativity and photons (as a particle).

You guys realize that Jews occasionally contributing to science doesn't invalidate that as a whole, they need to leave our society, right?

"Science isn't politics" Advancements have to be peer reviewed by respected names or get picked up by noone. Subject matter has to be funded and vetted. Most funding comes from governments. Information is released in multiple languages on obscure matters of interest, most going ignored for decades until someone with equal or near intelligence reads it.
It's exactly a popularity contest.

And the disturbance in the ether would not be self-replicating?
I fail to see how introducing physically non-measured quantities (ether, disturbance in it) and making it a cause of the measurable ones is anything like a good solution.

Good. Advice to Anons ITT: leave physics to the physicists. I see a-lot of ignorant comments and a very low level of discussion. The practice of physics is highly politicized, but theories like general relativity and quantum field theory are correct in the limited space they are supposed to be applicable.

I personally believe that meme magic is real magic that defies physics, and it's our most potent weapon. Praise Kek.

you are not at that level of understanding yet

hello kike
there is only jewish plagiarism, they want to believe they are smart….hence why they shove Kikesteins name around
jews are great at lying, stealing and propaganda….here are some great examples:
see?

It almost looks like you are shitting up this thread without realizing how IDs work. You debate like a jew too.

didn't mean to include

Blow your brains out.

Here, user. Enjoy.

Jews are just too stupid for understanding that. For the Jews, only rocks exists, Consciousness is just net of neurons firing.
Listen Jude. Filter me out, I am posting for some smart Anons here, not for high scholl level wannabe physicists.

Minkowski and Hilbert come to my mind.

How many si seconds are in an hour?

It's a trick question, an hour is 1/24th of a day. SI time is based around atomic activities not observable day time.

Basically relativity was only made sort of true in 1967 when they changed the definition of time itself.

Lolwut.

photons have mass
they travel at light speed
therefore??????

shills constantly ask us "to explain everything 100%" or we are wrong
so 9/11 cant be faked because we have trouble making sense of why the guys that can literally print money would give any shits over getting insurance money

climate change cant be faked because we are not sure who has wrong data and who is supporting the narrative only to keep their funding

You have serious deficiencies in the necessary physics. Photons do not have mass (rest mass, which is the only relevant mass in STR).

I this guy a jew? What he says seems very jewish.

The definition of time has never changed.

if something has mass then it has mass
are you saying its just there to fill in equations and the mass doesnt exist?
because if theres mass then it nullifies the mass cant at c
anyway, shills out in full force in many of the threads i find interesting, see you in another thread

Huh, this Philipp guy seems knowledgeable about the subject.
He should make videos or something about it (if he hasn't already)

Or did he just take to much LSD in college?

Kill yourself

Photons have zero mass. You can use E=mc^2 to calculate "mass" of seen photons, but it's not a physical thing.
Photons do not have mass. The end.

Explain solar sails. Pixie dust?

They have energy, which means they can impart momentum, which means they have mass.

What they don't have is rest mass. If one were to make a photon stationary it would have no mass, and the slightest force upon it would immediately accelerate it to light speed.

The m is rest mass

They have momentum

Correction: they have momentum, but don't need mass for it. The concept of mass is unnecessary for a large part of dynamics, you can simply work with momenta; same with 4-momentum in STR.

No

Did you mean Ph.D.?

"Campbell has had a long career as a scientist and physicist. He received a B.S. in Physics as well as an M.S. in Physics. His Ph.D. work specialized in Experimental Nuclear Physics with a thesis in low-energy nuclear collisions."

"Campbell most recently worked for NASA within the Ares I program."

Do your research before shitposting, user.

Here is an equation for you. Einstein was close but based his theory on the misconception of the limitation of a set speed of light.

E = m*k*lambda*a

E = energy
m = mass (either resting or moving)
k = universal constant
lambda = basic photonic frequency
a = the rate of change between energy and matter

The problem of c is that it expects a natural system to limit itself to one speed.

I forgot to add that I am not sure how to post the character lambda.

There is a difference between self replicating and propagation. One is the cause of itself the other has a source. Subtle maybe but with large ramifications.

Using an ether approach we have no need for Lorentz transformations and curved space. There are deeper ramifications as well involving the entire way you view reality, materialistic vs a reality beyond observable phenomenon. Can't have the goyim questioning their atheistic materialistic reality too much however.

Most of that is bullshit SR fall aparts using the explanations above. Can you show me a photon? There are other explanations for the action light that don't involve it being a logically inconsistent wave/particle….. thing.

Certainly not. Work on your Jewdar.

On the contrary. Jewish materialism and existentialism is based on premise, only material world exists, there is no soul, Consciousness is just phenomena and result of firing neuron nets in material brain.

Now back to your Talmud studies…

The fuck is this shit

...

Too bad the ether theory didn't work. Would make physics a lot easier probably.

Interesting and I don't disagree. Light does have a discrete component no question. I just don't think current physics is offering the correct explanation.

Have you looked a both sides? You do realise the lorentz transformation is simply a mathematical conincidence that has been extrapolated to include curved space and other nonsense. With the assumptions I mentioned above there is no need for it.

Thats not a single photon. A photon is a mathematical concept. Thats a packet of photons in which some of them were sent to the Camera.

If there were other effects of photons we could witness (like how electrons have quantum tunneling) an individual photons, but photons as far as I know literally only carry force, thats it.

of course it is! nobody would suppress scientific knowledge for profit

You seem to struggle to understand the influence of the media and the educational indoctrination. Have you ever read dissenting opinions from the period when Einsteinism became mainstream? Maybe Tesla, Steinmetz and Heaviside might be worth reading…. You know the people that actually created shit and didn't shill for shekels.

No. general relativity =! special relativity

The thing is that physics built upon loads of theories (and some laws) which mean that they are indeed theories. An ether theory can maybe one day do a comeback but you can discredit a theory (that accurately (enough since it's still a theory) describes our world) just because you don't like the results.
Solve the muon special relativity problem with an ether theory and i might change my mind.

You can see a single photon but you cant observe a single photon. The video is still relevant for this disscusion.

Well you can do that, and very easy as a matter of fact, but not in the sense we are talking about now

Dude these people don't believe muons exist, I honestly don't even understand the point of rejecting special relativity and quantum mechanics because its founders were Jewish. The fucking double slit experiment was verified with individual molecules that look like footballs and yet they reject the uncertainty principal.

It angers me because there's no point and shit like this is what causes republicans to hate science. I mean look at this shit, we were gonna have a super collider of our own in America, employing thousands of people and even bigger than cern. You know what happened? Retard republicans of the 90s actually lead a campaign against it when it was nearly finished and it actually got canceled in favor for the international space station. The ISS has done nothing for science compared to CERN.

I wish Gore got elected honestly, we never would have had a war that fucked up our debt scale. Or maybe we would have, idfk since everyone is in the pockets of the kikes.

It doesn't describe our world any better than the theories I have listed above. Read Jefimenko's book and tell me he is a crank.

I have no patience for particle physics in any form.

I would argue that they arent founded by jews (maybe Bohr) but instead a lot of jew act (like they always do) a middle man. And thats why im in the thread to begin with but it turned out to be a lot of /x/-tier nonsense.

Probably because you're retarded, the computer you're typing on takes quantum physics into account, most computers are fucking mapped out using quantum tunneling with electrons.

azoquantum.com/Article.aspx?ArticleID=12

You know what else? We cool things into super conductors using the quantum mechanics of photons. We also can't even explain super conductors without quantum mechanics.

Next, fucking piezoelectrics and most solid states don't work properly without quantum mechanics

nanomotion.com/piezo-ceramic-motor-technology/piezoelectric-effect/

Certain headphones use this effect to play music. But nah its fake.

They do and that's why we use em.
That might explain why you think they way you think.

Try proving that thesis. If a meteorite strikes you in the back of the head killing you instantaneously, the meteorite existed without you measuring it. I was just joking about him being a jew. he is obliviously not a jew. But the idea that reality is just a "virtual reality" strikes me as very jewish. (((It doesn't matter what you do with your life it's just a simulation goy)))

kikepedia

Bohr was indian. The Germans started this in ww2 because Heizenberg was a jew, the funny thing was that Heizenbergs mom called up Himmlers mom and asked him to stop bullying him in the newspapers.

Oops I mistook Borh for Bose
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyendra_Nath_Bose

No you idiot we just say that shit as it is the only way we can currently make sense of the phenomena we are observing. This is the usual shit, ummm…. well we are dealing with quantum mechanics so…. that wall doesn't exist.

This is no different to saying an evil spirit is making you sick. Does any of that make any logical sense?

You cant have one mass but you can 1 kg. You cant have one time but you can have 1 second.

I am not trying to say that tunneling does not happen we just don't have the full explanation.

Heisenberg wasnt a jew was he?

You don't have one point, but you have two sentences.

Thats how science works you retard. We used to describe light as a wave way before quantum mechanics, only as a wave, because we have no evidence otherwise. Because of the double slit experiment we also found out its a particle. You know what else? We found out the same way that a particle is a wave. All particles.

If you read any Kant you'd realize that you can't trust any external phenomenon as true, that doesn't mean you shouldn't believe it.

The frequency of a caesium atom is not to define time but a second

I don't really dispute any of that. I don't see what relevance it has to Einstein and SR however. I offered an alternative hypothesis above that does not require lorenz transformations or curved space. I also suggested that Einstein was largely reviled by the scientists of his day and a plagerist but the (((media))) wanted a useful Jewish scientist and he was deified.

I am not disputing that a light has both a discrete and wave components.

No such thing as fundamental mass, but there is Planck time.

We have an effect where force causes two very close plates into touching, its because of quantum physics actually, and we can't directly 100% measure the kg because of this problem.

Now this is some 9gag-tier shit.

The dude he plagerized actually said the same thing, Maxwells equations require relativity to work.

You also didn't explain how muons last so long in high speeds or the exponential requirement of energy in accelerating particles that directly follows Lorentz transformations.

That's my point, or rather that's the lie against my point.

WE HAVE TWO SECONDS

1/60th of a minute or 1/3600th of an hour or 1/86400th of a day, the observational time second.

SI second, the second of ephemeris time (ET) had the duration of 9,192,631,770 ± 20 cycles of the chosen caesium frequency

Can you show me a Muon?

For me, two things are for certain:

He was made a scientist super-star because he is Jewish and Carl ((( Sagan ))) took the mantle after him.

Higgs is a pretty good attempt
Plank time also just measures time.
I actually dont know if there is a definition of time. I dont know of one.

You really have no understanding of sience do you?

That is a 'cosmic ray shadow'. I see a phenomenon ascribed to a Muon but no muon. My understanding of science is better than yours, just accept this fact.

So Copenhagen interpretation of colapsing wawe function makes more sense to you? Just asking…

That meteorite thing is childish comparison. If meteorite exist, then it were allready been measured (created), wont you agree?

Did you catch up my second embed above? From Nobel laureate who basicaly speaks same thing?

Again. From the Jewish perspective nothing but material world exists, so there is no point thinking about anything else. We are talking about, how consciousness render simulated reality.

...

I just want to thank the math-anons in this thread who took the time to explain some basic things, you've made it worthwhile to go through.

Let me put it this way we observe certain phenomena and we then make a logical leap to say that these phenomena act in a way that is similar to how a particle would react but we don't ever actually see the particle. Maybe there is another explanation for the observations… Heilocentric vs geocentric etc.

the question is inherently flawed in the video.
"what time will they meet?"
in what reference frame is the speaker talking? there is no universal reference frame. that's the entire point of relativity

You make an empirical and/or a mathematical leap
Particles are made from these empirical and/or a mathematical leaps.
Indeed, and thats why science evolve progress

What proof is there that the mathematical leap is correct? The wrong mathematical leap results in curved space an absurdity. How can you make an empirical leap when you can't make an observation of the phenomena but only infer it?

further deliberating on the question. if i select either planet as my PoR, the answer of 1 year makes sense mathematically and reasonably.
until I am convinced otherwise, i will assume the speakers assumption that the theory is flawed is incorrect just b/c it doesn't appear to make sense.

Maths
Look up what empirical means.

Forgot to mention other "explanations" of double slit:
- multiverse theory
- electrons travel back thru the time
- every possible history is out there
- etcetra
In whitch one you beleive? Or you just dont ask (basicaly what Copenhagen says). I am all ears now.

...

LOL 'maths' enjoy the endless diversions of string theory.

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Tesla

good think Telsa didn't say that toady. he said it 100 years ago, before we had all the tools to measure phenomenon like relativity and esoteric particles.

I'd just like to say one last thing, it's never a bad idea to have some doubts about modern science, it is a "work in progress" more than anything else after all. But if you're going to start saying "Special relativity is wrong, Quantum mechanics is wrong, X discipline is wrong" then you're going several steps beyond doubt, at that point you need to start providing alternative theories with explanatory power.

Case in point there was a time where I had serious doubts about the atomic theory of matter, so I started considering the implications of infinitely divisible (continuous) matter and electric charge; and the only implication I could come up with is that the theory couldn't explain anything at all on a qualitative level, let alone provide equations on a quantitative level.

The thing that really sold me on atomic theory was Holla Forums's favorite molecule, DNA. Specifically it was how everything about DNA's capabilities and strange properties (base pairs, transcription/translation, double helix, meiosis and reproduction) could easily be explained from the atomic perspective, but had NO explanation from the continuous matter perspective.

Now special relativity is particularly interesting because when you look into it, you find that it's simply a way of making electromagnetism consistent with Newtonian mechanics; See, Newton's laws rely on the assumption that they hold in ALL inertial reference frames (equivalently, that the laws of physics don't change), whereas Electromagnetism is a series of deductions based on a simple assumptions about how electric charges and magnetic fields work, specifically you start with Coulomb's law of electric force, the Biot-Savart law of magnetic force, and faraday's/enz's law of induction; and from there you derive Maxwell's equations (with some geometric symmetries and calculus), which leads you to EM waves with exactly one speed. And the only way to have EM work in all inertial reference frames is to use the lorentz factor, which is equivalent to special relativity.

So when you say "Einstein was wrong because kike kike kike", you're actually saying that Western civilization's finest scientists were wrong about something or maybe everything - but you never go so far as to provide alternative equations.

If you're talking to me I've already listed three alternatives to SR based on electromagentic retardation. Jefimenko, Leon Brouillon and Charles Thornhill all respected physicists.

...

yea string theory is just mathematical

opps sorry didnt mean to post
Was gonna say: yea string theory is just mathematical ogabooga. Physics is an empirical science that is spearheaded (fore the most part nowadays) by theoretical work. The problem with gravity is that the empirical work is too far behind your "front" so you end up with things like string theory that is very baseless. And it doesnt help that it gets massive attention because it sounds cool to the normal people.

HOLD THE PHONE
I'm about 20min into this video, and the guy is ripping appart the Schwarzschild solution for general relativity.

And then I started thinking that this name sounds kinda funny, my j-dar started to detect faint echoes, could it be?

Well look at pic related, Holla Forums is always right.

Can you cite any?

Many of us understand that. Problem is, this red pill is hard to swallow not like all the others. This one requires a serious understanding of things even the above average intelligence of the general chan or specifically Holla Forums user does not have out the gate. A basic lack of understanding is the primary problem with this pill.

You would figure most would get it JUST from guy like my pic being considered an valid scientist.

What the hell are you even asking? The speed of light is effectively a "speed limit" imposed by our currently accepted model of physics.

Not even going to bother with you, because everything will go over your head and you'll probably just scream shill. Some of you fucks are as dumb as liberals. You don't want an intellectual discussion, you just want to feel like you are right. Anyone with a brain can see this.

Citation plz?
I've not heard that theory before but it goes along with another theory I have about electricity.

It's literally high-level mathematics. 1 + 1 is 2, even if Chaim fraudulently claims that it was his idea.

why bother making a 28 million dollar moon buggy and hand out shitloads of cash for contracts if you're just faking it?

They have relativistic mass though, which is why they are affected by black holes among other things.

No, he is making a good point. Time and space are metrical dimensions. Classically, they exist only to quanitify. They are like a net we throw over phenomenon to understand and control them. The same thing can be said about all of our philosophic theories but that is besides the point.

Metrical dimensions cannot have physical properties. Propagation of light (EM waves) is a physical property and in Einstein's theory this property is given to "spacetime". Specifically, we talk about the Permmitivity and Permeability of a vacuum in physics. These two values determine how electric and magnetic fields behave when interacting with matter.

Now, you are right when you say it is an abstract concept, and that's useful, but there is also something to be said about the contradiction between our everyday conception of time/space as metrical dimensions and SR's conception of spacetime.

If you are defining m to be rest mass rather than relativistic mass (photons have zero rest mass, but nonzero relativistic mass as another user pointed out) than the correct equation is E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 where p is the relativistic momentum p = mv/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^2). This reduces to E=mc^2 when p=0, and the equation is also equivalent to E=Mc^2 where M is the relativistic mass.

the problem he's having is about the nature of relativity itself.he's supposing there is a special reference frame from which everything can be measured, this is not so (and is literally why it's called "relativity").

at light speed, time does not move forward. so from ship A's reference frame, he will reach planet B at the same time that ship B begins to depart (ie, ship B hasn't moved yet in A's frame of reference). vice versa is true for ship B's reference frame.

so, from the reference frame of a ship, they do meet meet each other and their destination at the same time: 1 year. from the reference frame he's looking at the problem, they pass each other in half a year. from the reference frame of one of the planets (assuming both planets share a parallel trajectory) they would see much the same thing.
it is well understood that two different observers will disagree about exactly when an event happens. the only thing that is really consistent is the order. in this case, the order is depart, pass each other, reach destination. it just so happens that at light speed, your reference frame collapses the event that you pass the other ship and the event that you reach your destination into the same point in time. you, on one of these ships, would see the other ship depart, but everyone else on the planet would have seen it embark a year ago.

Tbh Teslas "theories" or atleast things that are attributed to him by popscience such as death rays earthquake machines etc. seem a bit more crackpotty to me than relatively. Relatively btw has been proven in numerous experiments. Such as the bending of light the airplane clock experiments gps gravity probe B etc.

My degree is officially applied physics which is just a semantic issue since in my country all physics educations at university offer the same possibilities. I followed courses in special and general relativity.

...

imagine flipping earths gravity on the jews

Who could be behind this thread?

So you postulate the existence of a "basic" frequency? EM field can have any frequency and there's no special "basic" one.
And you shitpostulate that energy and matter interchange.
So with no changes between energy and matter, there is no energy? Interesting dynamics, retard.

Itself.
Too bad it's not a physically measurable thing. Don't mix physics and metaphysics.

FTFY. What is it with everyone needing mass?

Your M is the "mass" I was talking about. It still does not have a physical meaning; the calculation you present is for objects with non-zero mass (you can see that you defined p=mv/0).
Does your M have any meaning for photons that it does for objects with non-zero mass? You can't measure it in any way. It has no effect on description of motion of photons - all you need is momentum. It's not a physical thing, just a number. You think a number exists?

Yeah it is weird, but I don't see any reason to dismiss something as black sorcery just because it doesn't fit in with common sense. In the end, common sense (Galilean physics) does not fit reality in extreme cases.

No Maxwell's equations are based on the fact that the magnetic field is generated by the decaying electric field and visa versa. Jefimenko says that both are independent and their source is a perturbation (like a pebble) that then creates pressure waves in the 'ether'. This makes much more sense intuitively than curved space and progressing through a vacuum. It also doesn't require the Lorentz transform but instead uses standard Galilean transform.

You're welcome to refute his maths…. No one has done it yet however…

Since the thread is now also discussing the fraudulent nature of Einsstein, my question is why Einstein?
I mean Heisenberg was of jewish mother, and surname, why not him. I read his kikepedia entry and it says that he was stripped of his position or something akin in nazi germany, yet it also says he was put in important position in the university of munich and the Natsoc, atomic program, however shor lived, Then theres, Bohr, Schrodinger, and other half jews or so that were instrumental in quantum physics, yet they are not the poster men for jew science, and Schrodinger heavely deanted Einstein on Quantum physics.
So either this men, were not as jewish as they liked them to be, or else idk

EM waves are non-intuitive. Postulating an unobservable (directly or indirectly) substance as a cause of a major part of natural phenomena is non-intuitive and especially non-physical.
You may think of ether, but for all of physics, it's as real as curved space-time.

Yeah it is.

Everything is politics, everything is religion, everything is philosophy.

Science is a very specific form of all of those things.

And there's two basic rules.

Theory. Test.

The cool thing about it, is that each piece of data is a hypothesis in it's own, that also needs to be tested. You don't know if the data's accurate. Ever. It's infinitely recursive.

They're probably not. They always fuck up.
Science is only as good as the people who understand it.

Another Jewish Fairytale.

You're a condescending little prick, aren't you?

You are the reason white people are so hated.

You are the reason scientists and nerds are hated.

You are the reason we're losing.

You really don't understand psychology, do you?

Now that's science!

The bad man took all the science!

The person who solved the time delay problem in satellites and GPS which Einstein fanboys say Relativity solved was Ron Hatch.

Perhaps you've already heard that GPS, by the very fact that it WORKS, confirms Einstein's relativity; also that Black Holes must be real. But these are little more than popular fictions, according to the distinguished GPS expert Ron Hatch. Here Ron describes GPS data that refute fundamental tenets of both the Special and General Relativity theories. The same experimental data, he notes, suggests an absolute frame with only an appearance of relativity.

Ron has worked with satellite navigation and positioning for 50 years, having demonstrated the Navy's TRANSIT System at the 1962 Seattle World's Fair. He is well known for innovations in high-accuracy applications of the GPS system including the development of the "Hatch Filter" which is used in most GPS receivers. He has obtained over two dozen patents related to GPS positioning and is currently a member of the U.S National PNT (Positioning Navigation and Timing) Advisory Board. He is employed in advanced engineering at John Deere's Intelligent Systems Group.

...

It's true the specific equation I gave for p is for things with nonzero rest mass, however for photons you can use the quantum equation p = h/lambda where h is Planck's constant and lambda is the wavelength, and then the equation E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2 will still work for photons. The momentum for electromagnetic waves can also be calculated in classical electromagnetism but I don't remember the non-quantum formula off the top of my head.

Yes, Schwarzchild was a jew. He and Einstein were jews that tried to hijack physics and science to their intellectual and philosophical movement.

Steve Crothers is good person. True warrior of science and truth. He destroys the whole general relativity and black hole myth.

I suggest you people watch also Bill Gaede. He is also doing a gods work.

Pure coincidence, megadweeb.

youtube.com/watch?v=i_jcTLetYr0&list=WL&index=8

Since m=0, you have E=pc for photons. No mass necessary.
In classical EM, it's momentum flux (since you're not talking about particles there, but a continuum; of course, it can be quantised afterwards), which is energy flux / c = avg.(EH)/c (in vacuum, the energy flux is generally given by the Poynting vector) = E^2*permittivity/2 for a harmonic wave.with amplitude E of electric field in vacuum. It's not hard to derive.
I know all that.

Not really it is quite intuitive. Sound waves and water ripples all follow this idea. Curved space is an absurdity and only exists due to the use of the lorentz transformation. If you remove the requirement for the lorentz transform as Jefimenko does while still getting results consistent with experiment why are we worshipping Einstein?

The Einstein Hoax:
users.isp.com/retic/physics/hoax.htm

You can derive the Lorentz transformation from a few hypotheses:
You assume the isotropy and homogeneity of spacetime, the equivalence of different inertial frames, and the existence of a universal limiting speed.

Of course, this requires one to accept these hypotheses on the basis that they seem reasonable and any claim to definite proof of their validity is due to circular reasoning.

Weev

It's not about him being wrong, Poincaré, Lorentz and Michelson before him weren't either.

It's about a jew being pushed by the German school of mathematics as the next hot shit as a strategic warfare move against the English and the French because how pissed the german were for the Versailles treaty of 1918.

The little opportunist had everything to win by accepting to be presented the hot shot… he was not.

Yes, goyim, it's all these darned Christians trying to control true Aryan pagans such as myself

Bottom line…

(a) Don't make having a pleb-tier understanding of physics into a NatSoc thing, that's embarrassing.

(b) All the math behind general relativity was invented pre-Einstein, and applied to explain very clear empirical and experimental results. The original inventors of the math only had kludgy theories for why it worked, which implied the experimental results were an exception to the general rule, and their equations would only predict behavior on Earth. Einstein came up with a conceptual framework that would explain the results as a general rule; people attacked the theory and pointed out many very weird predictions the theory made, but later observations actually confirmed the weird observations!

(c) Were the concepts of general and special relativity original to Einstein? He himself admitted, maybe not; he drew a lot on German idealist metaphysics. But given the way he integrated it with the new mathematical tools and the experimental results, given the way he unified previously disparate fields using these insights, and given the way he was attacked for his theory and stood by it, it's fair to say the man was a genius and deserves his fame.

(d) Jews are overrepresented at the extreme end of the bell curve for intelligence, especially analytic intelligence. (Study how bell curves work.) The value of mathematical/visuospatial skills tops out after a certain level (you can get other people to check your math… Einstein certainly did), and analytic intelligence dominates ability to master the subject. If you reject all big 20th c. advances in math and the mathematical sciences because muh jews, you're being an idiot. (This is an even bigger deal in economics than in physics; if you can't try to get the insights of the last 50 years, you can't develop strong right-wing answers.)

The funniest thing about Einstein is that he stole almost all of "his" greatest achievements from his wife like the thieving rat that his entire race is.