/sci/ - Science & Math

Everything is relative, even relativity

>>9757656
>Implying people much smarter than you aren't spending their whole legitimate scientific careers trying to poke holes in either relativity or QFT so that the models can be improved

the universe is a manifold of Riemannian geometry.

/thread

>>9757656
Relativity is true.
Prove me wrong.

>>9757656
Of course it is. Only a brainlet could believe it.

>>9757656
>Prove me right
Prove yourself right

>>9758488

>>9758524
bent space? bitch plz

>>9758488
That's Paul Gerber's theory that Einstein stole.

>>9757658
t. quantum mechanics

>>9759341
bullshit, Paul Gerber never had a geometric theory of gravity

>>9757656
I can prove you're
A) an asshole.
B) stupid.
C) troll.
D) all of the above

>>9758488
>muh energy tourus

>>9759348
Perhaps not but many of the original tenants of relativity are present; gravity propagating at the speed of light, the equation for the perihelion of Mercury and its derivation from Riemann geometry. All of this appears to have derived without recourse to a geometric gravitational theory.

It seems that even the idea of the 4th dimension being time was thought up by H.G. Wells ten years before Einstein wrote his paper. The question we have to ask is; is there anything that Einstein actually did contribute to science? Einstein is remarkable for only one reason. He is the biggest fraud of modern times, possibly alongside Freud.

>>9759507
> the equation for the perihelion of Mercury and its derivation from Riemann geometry
In what paper?
>It seems that even the idea of the 4th dimension being time was thought up by H.G
Baby tier. Physicists entertained that idea around the time of Newton.

Btw theres another "einsteins a fraud" thread going on at this very moment. Mods pls delete one.

>>9759507
you don't get it, some ideas and equations were floating around sure, but nobody took them seriously until Einstein published the complete theory bringing everything together beautifully
from a very simple principle he derived everything, nobody did that, not even close

>>9759547
http://www.alternativephysics.org/gerber/Perihelion.htm

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

>Physicists entertained that idea around the time of Newton.
Source? Anyway thanks for proving my point. He is an utter fraud.

>Btw theres another "einsteins a fraud" thread going on at this very moment.
That other thread is about his plagarism. This one is about Relativity being a lie. They are different threads.

>>9759554
I get it just fine. He stole lots of stuff never credited anyone for it and has recieved almost non-stop praise for it for the last hundred years.

>>9757656
Let's see. Ginned up by an idiot in his shower talking about horses running on beams of light. Said idiot failed every college entrance exam he ever took. Said idiot only found employment as a third class patent clerk.

Where he had access to the work of men who weren't idiots, and who didn't flunk every college entrance exam they took.

So the idiot turned into a thief, and here we have you, believing that Einstein was anything but an idiotic thief.

>>9759563
>hurr i have this retarded shit implanted in my brain and i'm not letting it go!
whatever, suit yourself, not like you actually studied physics in any case

>>9759572
You are the one that has been brainwashed with the charicature genius scientist portrayed in almost all media and films on the subject.
>not like you actually studied physics in any case
If you aren't studying this subject with a critical eye, then you aren't studying it period

>>9759564
Nice rundown. He was also a refrigerator mechanic and came up with a new system of refrigeration. And it didn't work. The supposedly great Einstein is nothing more than a failed refrigerator mechanic. Also he abandoned his children and left his schizophrenic son to rot in an insane asylum. But yeah, at least he wasn't a Nazi. Lol.

>>9759584
thanks for confirming you have no clue what you're talking about and that your shit opinion is worthless

It looks like low IQ white nationalist retards from /pol/ have been infesting this board a lot lately.

>>9760066
>white nationalist
>/pol
>low iq
>retards

>>9760066
>>9760090
jews are the most racist of all people as evidence by this.

>>9759564
>>9759590
>Where he had access to the work of men who weren't idiots

Lets not forget this famous picture of a place where real geniuses worked, of course Einstein not being one of them and was simply visiting. Also despite working at the patent office, said moron NEVER INVENTED A SINGLE THING.

>>9760066
>"everyone I don't like is a Nazi"- retard willingly using the internet hate machine.

>>9760416
Lmao based
>implying it's wrong to be racist

>>9760543
who's the deformed midget?

What aspect of relativity is incorrect?

>>9760549
Glad you asked. That's Charles Proteus Steinmetz, the first man to make artificial lighting, clarified magnetic hysteresis and corrected both Einstein and Tesla's math on numerous occasions. He was probably smarter than both of them combined.

>>9760546
There are undeniable differences between races. Being aware of these is not racist in itself. If you are part of a demographic that has been claiming victim status for centuries over claims of actual racism and then it turns out that you are actually the worst offenders and have been using it as a means to genocide another race or races then it is objectively wrong, yes. Can you observe the difference between these two positions?

>>9760576
No. What wrong with noticing that some races are pretty good and some deserve scorn? Jews are objectively more powerful than dirty wh*tes.

>>9760580
Thanks for revealing your power level, Schlomo.

>>9760584
No worries. Your race will be shoa'd soon enough wh*toid

>>9757656
You FOOL!
Einstien formed a pact to keep mankind from breaking the seventh seal! Mankind is not yet ready to know!

>>9760607
What defines good and evil?
To be a realist takes to set limits to the actions. Responsibility is your fundament as you can be responsible for both good as well as evil activities.

If you commit a murder (kill someone innocent), are you responsible for that murder? And does that make you evil?

>>9762509
Wh*tes deserve their fate. All I can tell you, goyim.

>>9762554
I'm a white goyim and I support you 100%.

>>9757656
>Relativity is a lie Prove me right
no one has ever been able to conduct an experiment that disproved general relativity at the macro scale. it is not the complete picture though.

>>9762612
It has never been proven either. GPS; nope, not real. Mitchelson Morley experiment; alternate hyptheses are possible. Hefele-Keating; disproven by Sagnac experiment. Eclipse and perhelion; both explanable by other means. Gravity waves; faulty data.

Don't get me wrong. It is a great idea. But it is far from proven adequately and has no real world applications. It makes for good science fiction, but it should remain there until we can adequately prove it.

>>9757656
I'm not sure that relativity is a lie. Einstein most likely believe it in earnest and his description is about as applicable as Newton's.

Dark Matter is a lie though, at least the claim that it's a majority of matter and that it's what 'fixes' the errors of the standard model of physics.

>>9762653
>It has never been proven
>far from proven

so are you actually a retard or just pretending to stir up shit?

>>9762612
Relativity is non falsifiable because there is no such experiment that would disprove it.

I can prove this because basic observation of the stars disproved it decades ago. and then "Dark Matter" was invented to correct the error.

This refutes your claim outright as without the addition of completely imaginary "dark matter," relativity fails to predict the orbit of stars around a galactic black hole, and that's pretty 'macro' if you ask me.

>>9762612
How about Relativity was proven bullshit decades ago but whenever it gets proven wrong, (((scientists))) invent imaginary variables to make it right again.

>>9762612
Direct observation of the cosmos proves Relativity wrong.

The way light moves over a long distance, the way stars orbit the center of a galaxy, the way galaxies orbit each other, 95% of all relativistic prediction is wrong on the scale of the cosmos without the addition of Dark Matter.

>>9762665
>Relativity is non falsifiable

why are you lying?

all you have to do is think of an experiment that would have a result predicted by general relativity and then conduct the result and see if the results match the prediction.

for example. take two extremely accurate atomic clocks, compare their times, send one into orbit for a year, then bring it back to the other, if they still agree on the time then general relativity will be disproved.

fyi its been done, and its one of the experiments that proves general relativity is correct.

you need to leave. your bullshit is going to infect other brainlets and make them dumber.

>>9762680
I'm not lying. Relativity was falsified and then Dark Matter was created as a correction.

This isn't debatable, as long as Dark Matter is a hypothesis, so too must Relativity be, since it is 95% inaccurate without it.

>>9762670
>Relativity was proven bullshit decades ago
bullshit, get off the crack pipe, stop listening to retards larping as physicists on youtube.
>>9762675
>Direct observation of the cosmos proves Relativity wrong
wrong, at best it might show that general relativity isnt the complete picture, but it doesnt disprove anything.

>>9762680
Get a telescope.
Look at the nearest spiral galaxy.
Observe the movement of each star over time.

It's been done. It proves relativity false.

>>9762687
>Relativity was falsified and then Dark Matter was created as a correction.
no brainlet, dark matter was postulated as a reason for unexplained mass, it didnt disprove general relativity. I doubt based on your post you even understand what either relativity or dark mater are.

>>9762689
>relying on assumed identity for credibility.
Please anon.
I'm not wrong at all, Relativity fails to predict the movement of the stars through a galaxy with 95% error.

>>9762693
you're wrong, like i already explained here >>9762695

>>9762695
>I can't read.
Dark Matter was hypothesized in response to Relativity's model failing to match direct observation. An invented correction.

There is no evidence of unexplained mass, only evidence that Relativity does not accurately model the motion of large objects in the universe.

>>9762695
>even if relativity is wrong, it's not wrong!
This is the definition of unfalsifiable.

>>9762696
>Relativity fails to predict the movement of the stars through a galaxy with 95% error.

wow you're a brainlet

I dont know where you're getting your bullshit from but its incorrect.

>>9758504
Instantaneous action at a distance

>>9762695
>>9762695
I doubt based on your post that you even comprehend the necessity of the scientific method or that you even knew that relativity was shown to contradict observation of the stars until I posted it, and now you defend it in a kneejerk way proving it an unfalsifiable and therefore non scientific claim.

It was shown to be wrong, but instead of admitting it to be wrong, "unexplained undetectable mass" was postulated and it was left in place. That's the spitting image of a non falsifiable theory, shit literally gets made up to fix it.

>>9762705
Only with the addition of Dark Matter is it 'incorrect.' Or rather, only with the addition of arbitrary inputs of dark matter to correct any error seen, is relativity able to claim accuracy in prediction.

In other words since we can't measure or detect dark matter, we add it in after the fact as an assumption to fix the errors of relativistic prediction.

Relativity is false.

>>9762708
>non falsifiable
you dont even know what that mean, yet you call me stupid.

no brainlet you are stupid. And you're wrong.

>>9762715
Something is non falsifiable when there is no way to test its predictive ability, no way to say, "well we tried this, and it didn't work, so this theory is false."

The truth is that Relativity used to be falsifiable, was falsified, and then Dark Matter was postulated to save it.


Meaning it's unfalsifiable because you can always correct any error with unexplained mass.

>>9762711
>we can't measure or detect dark matter
we can infer its presence, and measure its mass, via experimental observations. And by accounting for its presence, the equations for general relativity provide accurate results.

what is this some kind of you-tube shit meme going around? I swear the retards are out of control these days.

>>9762715
I don't think I called you stupid. If I did I apologize, you're just dissonant.

>>9762719
You call it an inference however I call it an error of theory.
You claim that errors in prediction of gravitational lensing are because of dark matter but I claim that it's because the theory is wrong.

Your logic is circular whereas I am acknowledging the error in the theory.

>>9762726
>however I call it an error of theory.
well you're a retard then and you need to stop listening to whatever bullshit you're getting that info from.

>>9762719
Caught you in a lie by the way.
>by accounting for its presence, the equations for general relativity provide accurate results.

That's not how it's done though. They only 'account for its presence' through the observation of error in the theory of relativity's model vs observation predictive quality, and then they just add or subtract the difference.
A force correction that just blatantly and arrogantly assumes the precipice, like all scientific endeavor in the past.


Circular is unfalsifiable it proves itself with its errors.

>>9762719
>Relativity is correct because dark matter.
>Dark matter exists because relativity is correct.

>Not circular.

>>9762738
>like all scientific endeavor in the past
you gonna tell me the earth is flat next?

>you lie
thats rich... discovering exotic forms of matter using one of the most successful proven scientific theories is now, according to you, proof the scientific theory is incorrect.

Back to whatever tin foil hat wearing flat earth tard circle jerk jerk you came from.

>>9762751
>flat earth deflection.
No.
>you lie
Yes, or you're low IQ. You need to provide evidence for dark matter that does not rely on Relativity to be true otherwise you cannot use Dark Matter as a refutation to the observed cosmological error of relativity.

>>9762755
>You need to provide evidence for dark matter that does not rely on Relativity

all you need for that is Newtonian Mechanics for that you utter mongoloid. Like I said, from my point of view its obvious you're a brainlet, and that you're just parroting some bullshit you heard someone else say, probably in a stupid flat earth you-tube video. I hope you get an actual science education someday, because you need it if you're going to have a prayer of talking to someone like me without sounding like a moron.

>>9762762
That's still circular.

>>9762767
>That's still circular.
no it isnt
the only thing circular here is the hole in your head where your brain should be.

>>9762762
>it's there because otherwise our understanding is wrong.
As a science memer you understand basic probability, I hope. How often is science objectively right vs proven wrong? For this reason, no matter how zealous you are, as a man of science I cannot even fathom assuming some big answer to be correct merely because it invents variables in order to be so.

>>9762762
>all you need is another proved wrong hypothesis.

>>9762762

>>9762660
You don't understand the English language, the subtly of communication, variable meanings or subtext. Don't respond to this, I won't respond back.

>>9762715
Stop getting emotional when someone rebutts your point. Your feelings are not important to science or the truth. Step back from the computer and take a week or two to cool of and come back when you are in a more rational frame of mind.

>>9762853
fucking loled

>>9762762
Your arrogance is unparalled on this board. I hope the mods perma-ban you.

>>9763006
in a thread claiming to be about how general relativity is wrong

where no proof is provided relativity is wrong

where established evidence that relativity is correct is deliberately ignored

where ignorance reigns supreme and the truth is ignored and shouted down with no further consideration

you want to ban anyone who disagrees with your pop-pseudo-intellectual bullshit

>>9762767
>>9762718

Dark matter can be shown independently of GR

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/174732/why-dark-matter-and-general-relativity

>>9762653

I don't think you know how science works. Of course GR has never been proven: no theory can ever be proven. We only say things are 'proven' once our attempts to disprove them have continuously failed, so we take it that the theory is a good tool for predicting things.

You take the shown predictions of GR to be explainable by other means. If you are able to show that they can all be explained by one consistent theory that makes other falsifiable predictions then you will become a very famous person. However, this has already been done (it's called general relativity).

Not to mention you casually dismiss GPS with no reasoning. Unless you provide a reasonable explanation, we can only assume that you are a conspiracytard. There is way too much hinging on the relativistic effects on satellites for you to simply dismiss that on a whim.

And gravitational waves are faulty data? I'm almost sure this has to be bait.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulse%E2%80%93Taylor_binary
Do you know how LIGO works? Look at their data and how they determine that they have detected a gravitational wave.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iphcyNWFD10

>>9763099
>dismiss GPS with no reasoning.
To be clear I am dismissing the idea that GPS proves relativity. It doesn't;

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/17814/that-10km-day-error-predicted-if-gps-satellite-clocks-not-corrected-for-relativi

http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm#[2]

I know how LIGO works. The wave lengths that they are looking for are are smaller than the 500u defects on the lens of the detector, which means that the data has to be extrapolated and is not directly recorded. The gravity waves were picked up by two different detectors but the times in between were too long, suggesting that gravity waves don't propagate at the rate predicted by the theory. And finally the two signals were different and the difference couldn't be reconciled by linear transformations meaning that they are arriving frm a different source or a different angle. The conclusion is that the signal detected by LIGO is mostly likely some kind of disturbance in the magnetic field.

The rest of your comment is too pernickity to entertain at this hour. I'm not getting into detailed discussion about the definitions of theories or speculation about who becomes famous for what. Although I appreciate that you admit GR is unproven.

They're being a little more subtle about it than usual which is impressive for such tiny minds, but you are arguing with neo-nazi shills in this thread. Make no mistake.

>>9762707
You mean spooky action at a distance.
No one has actually demonstrated being able to influence the result of entanged pair measurements such that you can transmit data. As soon as you know the state of one of the pair you know the state of the other, but you can't like change the state of one and have that state update over distance.
Relativity survives entanglement because causality remains.

>>9763099
> no theory can ever be proven
Which is why Germ Theory remains unproven to this day.

>>9762718
Yeah? The original theory of GR wasn't completely right(e.g; the "cosmological constant"). It doesn't mean the theory was completely wrong. Even if DM isn't real or is just more of a theoretical placeholder concept, it doesn't mean that Einstein was a complete fake fraud.

>>9763156

Do you have credible sources on your LIGO claims? How do you propose we explain observations that GR easily explains such as gravitational lensing or the orbital precession of Mercury?

It is indisputable that GR is incomplete, mostly in the quantum regime. But its predictions on the macroscopic scale are undeniable. What exactly are you out to prove on this?

>>9763156
You make sound like LIGO has only made a single observation, when it has made several, including one that could be verified visually, neutron star mergers.

>>9763179
>>pol

>>9763270
At the time I read the article with the above information they had made only one. Have they addressed any of these concerns; slower than expected propagation of waves, non-linear transformations? I doubt it. I don't trust LIGO desu.
I can't remember the site, but if you know how to use a search engine you will find it. I look for it later when I have time.

>GR easily explains such as gravitational lensing or the orbital precession of Mercury?
These have also been explained before Einstein and with classical physics.

>>9763288
>These have also been explained before Einstein and with classical physics.
no

>>9758488
My first original paper was on Analytic and Algebraic Topology of Locally Euclidean Metrization
of Infinitely Differentiable Riemannian Manifold

>>9763307
Read up on Paul Gerber. He developed a theory that gravity traveled at the speed of light, long before relativity was even considered and he used it to figure out the correct formula for the perhelion shift of Mercury. Einstein used the exact same equation in his paper and never credited Gerber for it.

It was claimed that a German physicist name Soltner predicted that light would be bent in a gravitational field back in 1804. But I can't find any reference to Soltner or his theory anywhere. There is an alternative hypthesis that what we think of as gravitational lensing could be refraction through a gaseous interstellar medium, which is plausible. It is more plausible than the theory that most of the Universe is formed from a non-reactive substance called dark matter, but I'm open to both possibilities.

My belief is that at this level it is difficult to prove which theory is correct, therefore we should cary out proper tests of Einstein's theory to see if that is actually correct and from that determine the former. The way to test it would be to set up an inferometer on the Lunar, or preferably Martian equator and recreate the MM experiment there. If a constant speed of light is recorded the matter would be settled in my opinion.

>>9762680
>i its been done, and its one of the experiments that proves general relativity is correct.

Atomic clocks were measuring the aether and its effect on atomic charge, not "spacetime". Perspective matters.

>>9764920
>Atomic clocks were measuring the aether
>>9764329
>cary out proper tests of Einstein's theory to see if that is actually correct

>>9764936
>Don't test my theory, just believe...

>>9764940
Why are you so fucking retarded? GR has been tested numerous times in the past 100 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

>>9764329
>proper tests of Einstein's theory

Those have been made.

>>9765055
>>9764949
Read the thread and lurk moar faggots.

>>9765144
This.
You should know by now this is a troll thread. Stop responding.