Science Quiz #2: Is E=mc² right or wrong?

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: mbkennel
No he wasn't. He brought up very important conceptual difficulties which sparked a large subfield of quantum mechanics, and the modern theoretical approaches are quite different from the 1930's orthodoxy.

Though some proposed theories of his turned out not to be true---the experimental evidence was not known until after he passed. And increasing work on chaos and decoherence had not been developed. Can you blame him for that?

So, Einstein was not "in denial" (which means to me not accepting high-quality theoretically sound interpretations of experimental evidence).

I qualified my statement by saying "In some sense Einstein understood this very well", so it wasn't complete denial, but he did reject the lack of deterministic causality.

I'm very suspicious of intrinsic, as opposed to apparent, non-determinism as well. QM works very well when you evolve state vectors or operators in the Schroedinger or Heisenberg picture. If the universe is made of QM particles, then who "pops" it by arbitrarily forcing in a projection operator and a Born rule? Do you really need it?

It works very well empirically (as a useful approximation to reality for calculational purposes) because experiments and experimentalists are made of 10^23 particles whose states can't be controllled perfectly and interactions have a very high Kolmogorov-Sinai entropy rate (i.e. chaos).

Remember dice? Not the model of random variables, the real life cubes in the casino. Are they non-deterministic?

originally posted by: mbkennel
Remember dice? Not the model of random variables, the real life cubes in the casino. Are they non-deterministic?

I said Einstein's little finger might be right after all didn't I? I just don't think his little finger is good evidence and neither did he. Dice are probably deterministic but we can know that and identify the variables which determine the outcome. We don't know how to do that with the individual photons or electrons in the double slit experiment:

Double Slit Experiment showing single particles distributed as an interference pattern


Maybe the point where the photon strikes the screen is deterministic but I'm not aware of any evidence for that, and lacking such evidence I'm somewhat skeptical of the idea, but I don't rule it out.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: mbkennel
Remember dice? Not the model of random variables, the real life cubes in the casino. Are they non-deterministic?

I said Einstein's little finger might be right after all didn't I? I just don't think his little finger is good evidence and neither did he. Dice are probably deterministic but we can know that and identify the variables which determine the outcome. We don't know how to do that with the individual photons or electrons in the double slit experiment:

Double Slit Experiment showing single particles distributed as an interference pattern

Maybe the point where the photon strikes the screen is deterministic but I'm not aware of any evidence for that, and lacking such evidence I'm somewhat skeptical of the idea, but I don't rule it out.

you don't need slits to create interference patterns, a single pin does it as well.
try yourself with a laser pointer and a needle...

it is always a wave interacting with the mater in the slits or pin creating Huygens sources and additionally interacting with itself. There is no need for probability and nonsense.
EM wave propagates and no "particles" move or travel anywhere. except electrons protons and other suspicious kind.
Speed of light depends on EM density which vary with gravity.

originally posted by: Dolour
Your holy physics model accounts it all to particles...

I don't know what that means, but the standard model doesn't say all the mass of the proton should be in quarks. Here's a science guy explaining it:

Your Mass is NOT From the Higgs Boson

only that the standard model cant explain the observed masses. how imperfect is that?

I just posted a video explaining where the mass comes from. If you mean it doesn't have a way to predict why the masses should be exactly what they are, that's true and that's part of the reason I said the model is not perfect. But the fact that special relativity didn't explain certain things that were later explained in general relativity didn't mean special relativity was wrong, it meant it was incomplete. The same thing could be true of the standard model today...it could be just incomplete, not wrong, or it could be wrong. We won't know the solutions to the unsolved problems until we find them.

*cough* i think you missed something.
After the conversations about Indian philosophy, some of the ideas of Quantum Physics that had seemed so crazy suddenly made much more sense.
Werner Heisenberg, "Great Minds on India", Page No. 117.

My take on that is if you write enough stuff and interpret it enough different ways, some of those interpretations are bound to be scientifically validated by random chance. If certain people chose to ascribe significance to that, so be it. I have great respect for the scientific contributions of Sir Isaac Newton, but this doesn't mean I have any respect for some of his non-scientific behaviors. I don't disrespect him for those either, he was influenced by the thinking of his time, which to some extent applies to everyone, though others seem stuck in the past and don't seem to appreciate what we've learned in the last 100 or 500 years.

we know that we cannot treat ANYTHING as independant entity, yet we try to SMASH particles and turn the remains into... well, independant enities...
CERN will surely bring up really interesting stuff, our commonly accepted, fundamental knowledge of the wheelwork of nature DICTATES it to be a dead and tho.

You've got nothing better, do you?

your pov is highly dependant on what your believe system accepts to be scientific, and whats nonsense.

Yes but you're wrong if you think it's about what I read in textbooks. It's about what I've learned in laboratories. And people flapping their gums about this or that with no evidence to back up what they're saying doesn't impress me, on the contrary thousands of years of BS from religion spewing things that were eventually shown to be wrong by evidence has shown religious guesses are usually wrong, but as I said earlier, just by random chance, a few religious statements about science turn out to be right. The batting average of religion is still dismal though, it's proven to be much more wrong than right.

spent a weekend searching for guys whos career got destroyed bc they brought up controverse theories.
ofc im talking about those whose theories haven prooven right, or at least couldnt ever be falsified.

OK here's a theory; there's an invisible dragon in my garage and it's undetectable by any known detection methods. Nobody can prove that wrong. But if other people choose to not accept that, I can understand why. Once people prove their ideas they are generally accepted, but of course they aren't always accepted before they are proven. This is as it should be because for every one that turns out to be later proven, there are many more which are surely wrong, like my invisible dragon theory.

im sorry i didnt really specify this. the toolmarks point to something with great force applied and a constant feed.
you cant really achieve this without the tool being conducted by screw threads(the egyptians didnt even have wheels at that point), and the ammount of material removed, at this pretty high feedrate indicate a very sturdy tool(far far beyond anything thats not past 1900ish)

You can create a lot of force by just putting a heavy object like a rock on top of the tool. They may have used fixtures made of wood which didn't survive, and I accept some people have made some wrong guesses about how they did it. But I see you making the same mistake as UFO observers, they don't know what it is so they jump to the conclusion it's alien. If we don't know how they cut the stones, then we don't know how they cut the stones, it doesn't mean we jump to conclusions. Maybe they did borrow some 5 axis CNC machines from some aliens, or maybe they used a method we haven't even thought of?

but thats pretty much why i told you to drag an engineer buddy in front of your computer.

I know plenty of engineering thank you.

allmost shock-fozen animals in sibiria, as well as trees under the antarctic ice shelf are an indicator for such an event.

I find that rather interesting myself,but I tend to doubt the sudden crust shift idea, though in 2005 we witnessed a 35-mile long chasm open up on the East African Rift in a very short time. This was not really a sudden shift of the crust however; the crust has been slowly shifting for a long time and the stresses were finally unleashed, which also happens in earthquakes.

at any rate, were not talking about some afterlife-cultist bronze-age guys, but a world spanning civilization, with wewonteverfindout what technological level. a point definetly looking into, is where pretty much all world religions tell us about a huge desaster allmost eliminating mankind.

You mean the epic of Gilgamesh? Which story was borrowed and put in other books? There could be a great flood or several, but evidence is overwhelming they weren't global and the ancient world didn't have a very accurate global concept, when the Gilgamesh or Noah stories were written.

that beforehand we all were unitied, shared the same language, and whatnot.
if several stories, from cultures that according to our knowledge should never ever have had contact with each other, all tell you the same stuff, its time to stop talking about coincidence or religious mumbo jumbo.

Here's some interesting reading for you:

Lost Civilizations

Lost civilisations
Here we will look at what are supposed to be humanity’s forgotten achievements: the miraculous technologies of forgotten civilisations, submerged continents and oceanic explorers.

Enjoy, but I don't want to drag this thread too far off in that tangent so if you want to discuss those topics further, there is a forum for that on ATS:

Ancient and Lost Civilizations Forum
We can discuss more in the existing threads there, or start a new thread if necessary though I doubt it will be since with over 5600 threads already I think the topics are pretty well covered. It's not the topic of this thread.

originally posted by: KrzYma
you don't need slits to create interference patterns, a single pin does it as well.
try yourself with a laser pointer and a needle...

The single slit does give a diffraction pattern, but it's not the same as the interference pattern seen with one versus two slits in this photo:

Double-slit experiment

Same double-slit assembly (0.7mm between slits); in top image, one slit is closed. In the single-slit image, a diffraction pattern (the faint spots on either side of the main band) forms due to the nonzero width of the slit. A diffraction pattern is also seen in the double-slit image, but at twice the intensity and with the addition of many smaller interference fringes.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

sure, but I was not talking about a single slit, I talked about a pin/needle

the thing is, no matter what you take to produce interference, it is important how they are created

I said
"it is always a wave interacting with the mater in the slits or pin creating Huygens sources and additionally interacting with itself."

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
You've got nothing better, do you?

in fact, if i could i'd choose to spend the rest of my days thinking about what space and energy are, thank you.

but as I said earlier, just by random chance, a few religious statements about science turn out to be right. The batting average of religion is still dismal though, it's proven to be much more wrong than right.

quite frankly, if you spend some quality time getting into "ancient" religion, youll find a wealth of such statements that turn out to be right.
so many, that the chance of them beeing coincidential tends toward zero.
propabilities like theese have convinced me that this totally weired stuff is actually not fiction.
its just not explainable by chance to me anymore.

chance... reminds me of quite a wonderful example!
the MIT came up with a propability for life on earth in the 90`s if i recall correctly, and numbered it with 1:21^10^9.
i remember the magnitude quite well, since everybody was like:
"wow weve been real lucky, werent we?"
wait, what?!

dont act like that!
if numbers imply something, have a close look at it!

OK here's a theory; there's an invisible dragon in my garage and it's undetectable by any known detection methods. Nobody can prove that wrong. But if other people choose to not accept that, I can understand why.

just for clarification: you deny inconvenient ppl being put to silence by the scientific authorities?

You can create a lot of force by just putting a heavy object like a rock on top of the tool. They may have used fixtures made of wood which didn't survive, and I accept some people have made some wrong guesses about how they did it. But I see you making the same mistake as UFO observers, they don't know what it is so they jump to the conclusion it's alien.

nowhere did i say aliens did it...
allso your appartus wont be able to generate constant feed. its the combination of sidewards and downwards push, at constant rates, thats of interest in that regard.

If we don't know how they cut the stones, then we don't know how they cut the stones, it doesn't mean we jump to conclusions. Maybe they did borrow some 5 axis CNC machines from some aliens, or maybe they used a method we haven't even thought of?

i dont really care how the maschiene used actually looked.
whoever did it had technology available most likely more advanced than ours, and looking at stuff like the Mahabharata they allso seem to have a better understanding of physics than we have.
So i fail to see how its not of any interest to closely investigate what they knew, granted that alot of this ancient stuff did allready influence our modern day perception of the universe.

I know plenty of engineering thank you.

wonderful! then you dont need qualified assistance when you check out this example.
yeah, i find the indiana jones hat rediculous too, as well as the sitename, but cant be arsed to search for something else atm.

I find that rather interesting myself,but I tend to doubt the sudden crust shift idea, though in 2005 we witnessed a 35-mile long chasm open up on the East African Rift in a very short time. This was not really a sudden shift of the crust however; the crust has been slowly shifting for a long time and the stresses were finally unleashed, which also happens in earthquakes.

well thats just an assumtion made from the observed, its ofc possible they DID plant all this stuff ona arbitrary line. :p
von braun believed ina nuclear cataclysm, but as long as we stick with "civilization beeing no older than 6k years" we wont find out at all.
the thing is that theese sites are propably ALOT older. all we have is stone, for wich we have no method of measuring when it was used as construction material.
this stuff might very well be 10k+ years old and we wouldnt even know.

You mean the epic of Gilgamesh? Which story was borrowed and put in other books? There could be a great flood or several, but evidence is overwhelming they weren't global and the ancient world didn't have a very accurate global concept, when the Gilgamesh or Noah stories were written.

its not just the gilgamesh epos, thats what i meant, its equally "reported" all over the world, with no apparent connection...
btw, pretty accurate phonetic world-maps(allso showing the ice-free antarctic coast line) contradict the believe of insulated tribes.

/edit:

originally posted by: KrzYma

"it is always a wave interacting with the mater in the slits or pin creating Huygens sources and additionally interacting with itself."

correct me if im wrong, but isnt the huygens stuff so full of arbitrary values, that it makes your head fuzzy?

a reply to: Dolour

correct me if im wrong, but isnt the huygens stuff so full of arbitrary values, that it makes your head fuzzy?

this is just geometry

originally posted by: Dolour
in fact, if i could i'd choose to spend the rest of my days thinking about what space and energy are, thank you.

I'll take that as a "no, I have no theory which fits observation better". You have to do a lot more than think about it, you have to learn about all the experiments already done, and explain how all of them fit your new model. This turns out to be quite a challenge for new models which non-experts don't fully appreciate. The new model often ends up having even bigger problems than the problem it tried to solve.

quite frankly, if you spend some quality time getting into "ancient" religion, youll find a wealth of such statements that turn out to be right.

I have, and that's not what I found, though I did find I'm apparently supposed to kill my neighor if I see him working on the 7th day of the week.

chance... reminds me of quite a wonderful example!
the MIT came up with a propability for life on earth in the 90`s if i recall correctly, and numbered it with 1:21^10^9.
i remember the magnitude quite well, since everybody was like: "wow weve been real lucky, werent we?"

In graduate school I was taught a name for such things which had it's own acronym...SWAG: Sophisticated Wild-Assed Guess. I've seen more than one source apply some fancy math to abiogenesis and while the math isn't wrong it's based on some assumptions which are not well founded. In my view we don't really know how likely or unlikely abiogenesis is, but one possibility is that life on Earth isn't a process of abiogenesis at all but it could have come to Earth on a rock ejected from Mars by an impact.

just for clarification: you deny inconvenient ppl being put to silence by the scientific authorities?

We discussed the example of plate tectonics earlier. In 1915 Alfred Wegener published his book "The Origin of Continents and Oceans", and it spurred some debate but his idea was generally not accepted. He wasn't silenced. If you want to go back centuries to Galileo then yes you could say Galileo was silenced by the church but the church hasn't had that kind of power for a long time since. (which is another tally in the negative column for religion BTW).

The example I find both funny and tragic is that a lot of gullible people think some scientist promoting alternative energy like cold fusion was killed to silence him. Well it was a mystery at first who killed him but it turned out he was leasing a house to someone who didn't pay the rent so he started eviction proceedings. His tenants apparently didn't like being evicted and killed him. His death had nothing to do with being silenced but a lot of people who haven't done adequate research claim he was "silenced". If that's not the case you're alluding to, then give me a name of someone who was silenced.

nowhere did i say aliens did it...
this example.
yeah, i find the indiana jones hat rediculous too, as well as the sitename, but cant be arsed to search for something else atm.

I watched that. Here's an analogy:

Someone doesn't know how the universe was made, so they make up an explanation: God did it. The problem with that is, you took one mystery, and instead of solving it, you created even bigger mysteries than the one you tried to solve, so it's no solution at all.

That's what the guys in that video do. They take one mystery, and instead of solving it, they propose that there's an even bigger mystery with even less evidence. They say there must have been a more ancient civilization which had electricity etc. Where is the evidence for this more ancient civilization and their electricity? They don't have it. If they find the evidence then it might become another example like plate tectonics where the idea is rejected initially for lack of evidence.

To put it another way, the fact that I don't know exactly what technique was used to cut the stone doesn't mean it must have been done with electricity because modern machines can use electricity to cut stones. If you're going to claim to solve the mystery, then solve the mystery...don't come up with an "answer" which is only a bigger mystery...it's better to say you don't know. There's as much evidence "aliens did it" as for their "older civilization with electricity" idea.

the ice-free antarctic coast line)

I fell for that explanation of the Piri Reis map at first too, but do some more research and you'll find the claim it shows the ice-free antarctic coast line is false. It's more like a distortion of the southeastern coastline of South America.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

You have to do a lot more than think about it, you have to learn about all the experiments already done

what part of "ive spend the last 20 years doing so" was worded so poorly to lead you to the impression that this wouldnt be the case?
take for granted that i spent a tremendous ammount of time, reading into as much stuff as my time allowed.

I have, and that's not what I found, though I did find I'm apparently supposed to kill my neighor if I see him working on the 7th day of the week.

that last part of that comment belies its former claim...
you cant consider anything younger than 4k years "ancient", so nowadays world religions are of only particular interest.

have a whack on the vedas for starters, and how "kali"(the turbulence) is acting uppon "shiva"(the "sea of existance") to make him do "uncivilized things"(love that phrase).
i fail to find anything regarding murdering my neighbors for whatsoever reason.

I've seen more than one source apply some fancy math to abiogenesis and while the math isn't wrong it's based on some assumptions which are not well founded. In my view we don't really know how likely or unlikely abiogenesis is, but one possibility is that life on Earth isn't a process of abiogenesis at all but it could have come to Earth on a rock ejected from Mars by an impact.

i think we have a communication problem, its not about the origins of life, but the unwillingness to question results and method, even if the values given are totally of the hook.
...and how science chooses(!) rediculous chance over even assuming outer influence.

If you want to go back centuries to Galileo then yes you could say Galileo was silenced by the church but the church hasn't had that kind of power for a long time since. (which is another tally in the negative column for religion BTW).

ill take that as a yes...
google "scientists career destroyed by vote"

His death had nothing to do with being silenced but a lot of people who haven't done adequate research claim he was "silenced". If that's not the case you're alluding to, then give me a name of someone who was silenced.

i wasnt saying anything about killing ppl, its allready enough to redicule them so noones taking them serious(wich indeed happened, didnt it?)
.

nI watched that. Here's an analogy:

Someone doesn't know how the universe was made, so they make up an explanation: God did it. The problem with that is, you took one mystery, and instead of solving it, you created even bigger mysteries than the one you tried to solve, so it's no solution at all.

i told you to pay attention to the measurments, not his conclusions.
instead of looking for what suits one particular case you should carefully examine the intersections.
ive never sayd i support those theories as a whole, nor that i would make any claims regarding what happened.

i told you to have a look at the measurments, and suggested that you should investigate on the topic yourself.
but since any assumtion including us not beeing the highest point of technical evolution is "unscientific" you choose to ignore them and, without any evidence i might add(wheres the million tons spoil pile from the ramp?), assume they just "somehow" achieved it.
you know, thats actually what id call "unscientific" lol.

To put it another way, the fact that I don't know exactly what technique was used to cut the stone doesn't mean it must have been done with electricity because modern machines can use electricity to cut stones.

i sayd several times that i neither know who built it, nor how they did it.
cant recall to mention any electricity...
again you fall back to rediculing stuff by pointing out holes in current "theories" instead of looking for stuff that really needs an explanation.

I fell for that explanation of the Piri Reis map at first too, but do some more research and you'll find the claim it shows the ice-free antarctic coast line is false. It's more like a distortion of the southeastern coastline of South America.

the map i had in mind allso shows the american coastline, pretty darn accurately, with the arctic as an distinct seperate landmass.

this discussion has pretty much clearly shown to me, that you draw conclusions based on assumptions about whats superstition and whats "scientific enough".
take this advice from someone who been into science eversince he was a kid, and recently started to discover that alot(not all the suff) of what we consider superstition is actually based on reality and not fiction.

reflect over this statement for a minute: "without knowing both sides of the story/coin, one could never draw a conclusion based on the whole picture."

originally posted by: Dolour
i told you to pay attention to the measurments, not his conclusions.
instead of looking for what suits one particular case you should carefully examine the intersections.
ive never sayd i support those theories as a whole, nor that i would make any claims regarding what happened.

i told you to have a look at the measurments, and suggested that you should investigate on the topic yourself.
but since any assumtion including us not beeing the highest point of technical evolution is "unscientific" you choose to ignore them and, without any evidence i might add(wheres the million tons spoil pile from the ramp?), assume they just "somehow" achieved it.
you know, thats actually what id call "unscientific" lol.

There's nothing unscientific about saying that we never found some 3000 year old tools so we don't know exactly what tools and methods were used 3000 years ago.

You give me a video to watch, I watch it and the guy is talking about 3000 year old electrically powered tools. Now you tell me forget about that part. In that case I'm not clear what you expect anyone to get out of it. I'm impressed that Wally Wallington can move and erect 20 ton monoliths all by himself without any help, am I supposed to be impressed that someone else figured out how to shape rocks? What I see are people with very limited thought processes on how these rocks can be shaped. I can think of alternatives that could have been used thousands of years ago that the guys in the video apparently never thought about, and some of them are documented. You post a video of a guy saying "3000 year old electrical power tools" and then say "I never said anything about electricity". Well why don't you either post a video that says what you mean or say what you mean? I'm not a mind reader.

the map i had in mind allso shows the american coastline, pretty darn accurately, with the arctic as an distinct seperate landmass.

So you write this but don't bother to post it or a link to it? The map that is often cited as showing the antarctic coastline is the Piri Reis map. I think that's the one you're talking about and it's not as you describe it with antarctica as a separate landmass, but if not then post the one you're talking about. Here's the Piri Reis map where the so-called "Antarctica" isn't separate:

en.wikipedia.org...


This explains why it's not Antarctica:
www.uwgb.edu...

I think you're confused and I don't think there's another old map which allegedly shows the ice-free Antarctic coast, but prove me wrong if there actually is another one.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

You give me a video to watch, I watch it and the guy is talking about 3000 year old electrically powered tools. Now you tell me forget about that part.

toolmarks tell you alot about how something was crafted.
...what they do not tell us, is what power source was used to drive the tool.
one doesent need to be einstein to understand that, wich is why this is a real good example of how you obscure the observed, to make it fit to whatever information you were fed with by the system.
or in this case redicule it by pointing out something of wich i clearly sayd it to be pure hypothesis, and in the first order would not be of interest.
even measures taken to prevent exactly your response, couldnt prevent you from falling back into this "trained behaviour".
you did not spend a single second going over this mentally, but instantly resorted to redicule, even tho there was precaution taken.
if this doesent make you think, and make you question how independant your conclusions really are, i dunno what...
one has to first understand how oneself ticks...

You post a video of a guy saying "3000 year old electrical power tools" and then say "I never said anything about electricity". Well why don't you either post a video that says what you mean or say what you mean? I'm not a mind reader.

because its hard to find anyones work out there, thats free of his own "flavour".
and you dont need to be a mindreader, its really simple and ive sayd it before(but lemme formulate it differently):
look at the measurements taken, leave the personal conclusions of this guy outside and think for yourself of how they could have achieved this using primitive tools.
you mentioned beeing firm with engineering, so those measurements(and the measurements and toolmarks alone) speak for themselfes.

So you write this but don't bother to post it or a link to it? The map that is often cited as showing the antarctic coastline is the Piri Reis map.

after all this "intersection" talk it should have been apparent that i wouldnt have mentionhed it if it werent found throughout the world...
the chineese had it for example, theres stuff like this, and literally dozens of others if you just look it up on google.
you see the pattern again? theres one piece that doesent fit, wich is used to irrationalize the whole topic, with no further investigation of any more pros or cons undertaken.
thats more a believe system than a scientific POV.

that piri reis map is often used as to "debunk" the topic, while completely ignoring the wealth of other sources.
what does it really debunk? the seriousness of mainstream science, prayer wheel like repeating the stuff fitting, ignoring the rest.

im getting tired of this, your so eager to not see anything thats left or right of the road, that it will hardly matter what anyone says...
i had to digest quite something myself, when i figured how "programmed" i really am, how mirror neurons, and therefore my environment, affect the way i think, what i believe...
the hardest step is indeed the first one.

heres one for you: next time you enter the mall, think about how you actually got there, and what happened on the way.
humans are by nature mostly on autopilot, realizing that its not just true for simple tasks will change your world.
...well it would, but im not so sure anymore if thats ever goina happen.

originally posted by: Dolour
the chineese had it for example, theres stuff like this, and literally dozens of others if you just look it up on google.
you see the pattern again? theres one piece that doesent fit, wich is used to irrationalize the whole topic, with no further investigation of any more pros or cons undertaken.
thats more a believe system than a scientific POV.

that piri reis map is often used as to "debunk" the topic, while completely ignoring the wealth of other sources.
what does it really debunk? the seriousness of mainstream science, prayer wheel like repeating the stuff fitting, ignoring the rest.

The newyorkmapsociety link Does talk about the Piri Reis map!

It also mentions the other one you linked to a picture of with the heading Exploring the Impossibly Accurate 16th Century Maps of Antarctica and Greenland, so let's look at it:


Take point C and follow it to the right.

How is that "impossibly accurate"? It doesn't match, and I'd rate the accuracy as very poor. Given that low level of accuracy in general it's a lot more likely that he's got B in the wrong location. If you move A and B to the left on the bottom map, that matches as well as the rest of the map.

What we have here is a case of someone wanting to draw a certain conclusion, then distorting their interpretation to try to match that conclusion.

But interpretation of the points A B and C aside, it's beyond ridiculous to call this map "impossibly accurate" when it's anything but.

Yeah I'm tired of this too. It would have been great if you really had a map showing the antarctic coastline with impossible accuracy, but this fails miserably.

The other link by the way was to before it's news, a known hoax site which is banned at ATS, and the security feature in my browser wouldn't even open the link.

Keep exploring alternatives, but don't fall for these obvious delusions. Take a close look at that map and you can't possibly think it's "impossibly accurate" unless you, well, finish that sentence as you will.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
The newyorkmapsociety link Does talk about the Piri Reis map!

they put quite alot of those maps togeather under the term piri reis map, makes it easier to label them nonsense.

Take point C and follow it to the right.

How is that "impossibly accurate"? It doesn't match, and I'd rate the accuracy as very poor.
What we have here is a case of someone wanting to draw a certain conclusion, then distorting their interpretation to try to match that conclusion.

who knows how old the original map was, and how accurate the copies where, or how many have been made...
regardless of the accuracy, it shows that there was "some" knowledge regarding the antarctic coastline, and renders the claim they didnt knew there was an antarctica false.
thats the main point... and yet you nitpick on the accuracy, totally denying the finds real value.

Yeah I'm tired of this too. It would have been great if you really had a map showing the antarctic coastline with impossible accuracy, but this fails miserably.
The other link by the way was to before it's news, a known hoax site which is banned at ATS, and the security feature in my browser wouldn't even open the link.

those were just 2 random examples, and i sayd theres a "wealth" of findings out there.
if you dont like this particular one, just google it up annd pick one of the dozend others.

you state it fails miserably, even tho it clearly shows the antarctic coastline, wich cant be mixed up with the american.
again, the original source is godaloneknowshowold, so its logical that its not really accurate(anymore).
yet the fact that they indeed knew the arctic and antarctic is dismissed without further mentioning it again.

Keep exploring alternatives, but don't fall for these obvious delusions. Take a close look at that map and you can't possibly think it's "impossibly accurate" unless you, well, finish that sentence as you will.

the fact that they apparently knew both poles doesent boggle you the slightest?
figures...
theres a vast ammount of so called "ooparts" out there, and lets assume 50-80% are hoaxes or just garbage.
stop focusing on the "waste" 80% and have a look at the 20% that cannot be explained.

lemme give you a different example, from Tesla's autobiography:

At this time I made a further careful study of the Bible, and discovered the key in Revelation. The first gratifying result was obtained in the spring of the succeeding year, when I reaching a tension of about 100,000,000 volts—one hundred million volts -- with my conical coil, which I figured was the voltage of a flash of lightening.

its dogmatically being refused to look into it, since anything even closely related to religion is superstition, unscientific and NOT part of science.
how scientific exactly is it, to be any selective in whats worth investigating, even totally ignoring serious claims like that?
does that raise a feeling of anger within you? think of why this is the case!

its about time we revise what weve all too quick labeled superstition...

regarding the topic, i cant think of E=mc² beeing correct, since it demands the presence of matter to describe energy.
this does not fit the concept of space, in the absence of matter, being full of energy.

/edit: heres something worth reading.
do the feelings described by the author somehow sound familiar?

a reply to: Dolour
Who said they didn't know about Antarctica?

originally posted by: Dolour
the ice-free antarctic coast line)

This is what you said and what started this tangent.

The extraordinary claim is that the maps are supposed to show what the antarctic coast looks like without the ice sheet. When you study the maps like the one you linked to you find this claim is not supported at all by the old maps.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

The extraordinary claim is that the maps are supposed to show what the antarctic coast looks like without the ice sheet. When you study the maps like the one you linked to you find this claim is not supported at all by the old maps.

the fyords shown tell me something else...
if that would show an ice shelf, those wouldnt be there.

purposely ignoring stuff is unscientific.
...and its repetitive in terms of the described box-thinking behaviour.
...wich is pretty much why ive linked that article from the french magazine. ^^

a reply to: Viesczy

Converting photons into electron-positron pairs

Here is a pretty decent article about a proposed experiment to do just that.
It would be an interesting proof of General Relativity, because in the theory it should work both ways.
The experiment would use extremely high-energy photons, and collide them to create electron-positron pairs.
All I have to say is,
How long until "Tea. Earl Grey. Hot"?

a reply to: PhoenixOD
Necroposting here to add a new-ish video that's relevant to this topic. A few years after I made this thread, Fermilab made this video explaining what this thread is about. Dr. Don Lincoln explains why E=mc^2 is "wrong" and he also explains that mass doesn't really change just because something travels at a different velocity. That's a change in energy, but not a change in mass, though unfortunately some people were misinformed it's a change in something called "relativistic mass". It's more about energy as Dr. Lincoln explains.

Why E=mc² is wrong

The most famous equation in all of science is Einstein’s E = mc2, but it is also frequently horribly misunderstood and misused. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln explains the real truth about this equation and how people often use it wrong.

a reply to: Arbitrageur.
Not sure if the equation is wrong.

I have wondered is it possible to compress the mass field of an object by temporarily removing the electron fields from all the atoms of the object/structure during travel and then add the electron field after traveling rebalancing the mass field to its original energy signature?

This in theory then changes or decreases the actual or original energy signature of said object/structure why in travel. Decreasing the amount of energy required to move the original mass amounts.
Like taking a starships energy/mass signature and compressing it down to the energy/mass signature of a bottle cap. Now allowing said object/structure to move through the energy of the universe with same mass of atoms but carrying a smaller energy signature. Requiring less energy to do so.
Compressed mass-

a reply to: Ophiuchus 13
I don't understand your "theory" but I'm sure it has nothing to do with this thread which is more about popular misconceptions about E=mc² which Dr. Don Lincoln explains well. If his video had been around when I made this thread, I would have included it in the opening post.

If you want to discuss your "theory", which sounds more like a hypothesis to me, you can make a separate thread on that. I put "theory" in quotes because real theories have lots of supporting measurements, like relativity, and I'm aware of nothing supporting what you said about giving a starship the mass/energy signature of a bottle cap.