Einstein was a fraud. E= nothing

a reply to: NorEaster

You realize your diagram is very wrong right? For one you don't know the difference of an "observer A" and "observer B" and as far as

"As we see in this diagram, we're being told that the observer (A') is slowing down the time in his own reality by looking forward at the strike (A')...

That's not how it works.

a reply to: knightsofcydonia

A 54 minute Youtube video will disprove multiple lives worth of research....

Seems legit.

a reply to: knightsofcydonia

Let's just look at this as it is. You come here boasting someone elses research as if you did it yourself. Ego. You then do the typical ego in denial tactic of avoiding having to explain why you are so pumped up over -someone elses research- whilst simultaneously slandering one of the biggest names in theoretical sciences in written history.

A man is a fool if he takes someone elses truth as his own, a man is a bigger fool if he lives his life according to someone elses truth. How about you do your own research, provide your own theories and calculations and maybe you won't look so foolish in front of a bunch of people who actually do their own research.

You're acting like a newspaper headline trying to gain popularity by sensationalizing (slandering all who oppose your view) someone elses experience. Do you see how foolish that is?

Why don't you really think about this in a scientific manner according to implications. How is Einstein being wrong going to make YOUR life better while you're still living this earthly experience? How is slandering Einstein going to make YOU happier, peaceful, and abundant while you're still alive? How is sharing someone elses THEORIES going to enrich YOUR personal life?

If you can't answer these questions about yourself then it's absolutely foolish for you to credit/discredit others. It's like taking life advice from a dog, just pure stupidity.

a reply to: Aural

That's the thing. They are not completely sure if the bombs work yet, hence the 2474 bomb tests in the last 60 years.

a reply to: knightsofcydonia

Why would I be upset by the rabblings of a stranger? That's like me saying, 'I know this is going to upset you, but I'm the greatest'. Why should I care enough about what you're saying to be upset by it?

E=mc2

E - energy, what energy ??
some say kinetic energy, kinetic energy of what ?? a virtual (non existent) particle like photon ?

m - mass, what mass ??
1kg on the Earth is 1kg because on Earth gravitational
acceleration is 9.81 m/s^2
the same 1kg on the Sun with gravitational acceleration of 274 m/s2
or 28.0 times that of the Earth is 28kg

c - the speed of light, measured here on Earth, not near the Sun or Alpha Centauri
or in any Galaxy billions light years away.

you should not calculate with this equation.

originally posted by: AnuTyr
im sorry? Are you claiming mass does not contain energy? Because it does. We proved this with the Atomic bomb.
Also i tend to not take videos that have disabled comments very seriously.

What the basis of your thesis? Simulated universe?

Well if something is simulating the universe, then that means that what ever is simulating us is also being simulated. In order for matrix theory to exist it would have to be an infinite ammount of simulated universes. Since we will be doing that on a computer here on Earth and we assume to create a universe then that means that anything that created our universe or the chain of universes also has a probability of infinity of being on a computer device. All it takes is the upper chain of simulated universes simulating the infinite ammount of universes where our universe sits, it's envitable that the a simulator carrying us will be destroyed. Even if it does not happen from the universe that is simulating our own. So self destruction is a 100% probability in a simulated universe. I don't exactly believe in the *Matrix* idea. I personally believe matter and energy is alive.

I'm sorry OP not much material to go on right now could you elaborate? Why do you say there is no black holes?
Explain this contradiction.


Bare with me here.

They say can God create a stone so massive he cannot lift?

Let me turn this around.

Can a star become so massive that it dwarfs many galaxies?
Can stars continue to grow? And not collapse? What happens when a vortex forms uppon massive Implosions? When the forces of the implosion are magnitudes larger than the force of explosion, that dismantled atoms cannot even expand.
We call those black holes.

Do you believe in entropy? When mass and energy begins to lose its frequencies, It loses its structure because the vibrations of the particles, The negative positive and neutral charges are losing power, Power comes from mass and mass can become power/energy.

Atoms are only visable because of the electrons spinning around it causing the effect of a *solid object*
If the argument is towards relativity then you are somewhat correct as there is not gravity particles.
Gravity is based on clumping, Where large magnetic forces of positive attraction and negative repulsion form large electro magnetic layers or rings over a large object. When something large is spinning. It works like a turbine and generates energy.

Atoms are like tiny motors, With little parts thrown together to form a *hologram* of the light and frequencies it has adapted which is seen by composition frequency/vibrations and energy per square inch.

My point is that when these tiny parts lose their frequency because of internal energy draining just like how magnets lose their magnetism over time. electricty supercharges magnetism, This is a now brainer. What is electricity? Electrons? hmmm. maybe a connection?

Protons simulate energy when it's coupled with an electron it turns into light, turns into a positron, which leads to photons and gamma rays. Where matter is directly turning into light.


Don't make any mistake tho, Matter is light. And light is matter.

if you want to distinguish energy from mass all you need to do is remove the neutron. And even then Neutrons have their own ways of turning into *energy*

It's not really hard to understand really. Just because we don't see the particles that *decay* is because they lose their function and drift. They become unstable, We can see this as radiation as the guts are spilling out. Everything produces radiation because everything decays. Tho the levels are quite low typically and normal for things we come in contact that are not toxic. Radiation is gamma rays. Pretty much explained how gamma rays happen. When a gamma ray burns out it can either attached to something else and draw energy from it maining nearby particles unstable. Black holes suck in all the dudd particles floating in space that are drawn to the center of the galaxy. We call the center of the galaxy a giant black hole because it eats massive ammounts of mass. There's no alternate universe for this mass to pour to so it pours out either side of the vortex. The space hurricane pulls us in very much the same way the eye of a hurricaine pulls air within its vortex. So that's where our *gravity* is coming from. If dark matter exists it means these particles generated by the vortex blanket the universe. So when we are being pulled it generates a wall of these partcles that we roll along once a vortex is formed. It's easier to be drawn into something spinning fast than something that is not. But mass does have attracting qualities and large sums of mass accumilate along the magnetic rim. Creating the effects of gravity. Just spinning amplifies those effects.

Just my theory tho. All black matter which is torn apart electrons neutrons protons and other particles mashed together where no spinning function occures like how Atoms are mini motors. Black mass is the opposite. Well in that state tho i believe mass replenishes energy from being contained. And like an earthquake, these *fault lines* of compressed shards of particles begin to break lose after billions of years. Its the building up of energy i believe from these contained particles that replenished the mass.

You just hurt my brain. lol

Peace

originally posted by: KrzYma
E=mc2

E - energy, what energy ??
some say kinetic energy, kinetic energy of what ?? a virtual (non existent) particle like photon ?

m - mass, what mass ??
1kg on the Earth is 1kg because on Earth gravitational
acceleration is 9.81 m/s^2
the same 1kg on the Sun with gravitational acceleration of 274 m/s2
or 28.0 times that of the Earth is 28kg

c - the speed of light, measured here on Earth, not near the Sun or Alpha Centauri
or in any Galaxy billions light years away.

you should not calculate with this equation.

An now my brain is officially scarred. lol

Peace

originally posted by: KrzYma
E=mc2

E - energy, what energy ??
some say kinetic energy, kinetic energy of what ?? a virtual (non existent) particle like photon ?

m - mass, what mass ??
1kg on the Earth is 1kg because on Earth gravitational
acceleration is 9.81 m/s^2
the same 1kg on the Sun with gravitational acceleration of 274 m/s2
or 28.0 times that of the Earth is 28kg

c - the speed of light, measured here on Earth, not near the Sun or Alpha Centauri
or in any Galaxy billions light years away.

you should not calculate with this equation.

Energy, well it can take on many forms and depends upon the instance. Go from a high energy Gamma and pair produce an electron positron pair, and your energy is converted into mass and momentum. The pair will carry the forward momentum of the photon. This has been observed, you can see it in a multitude of bubble chamber slides.

Nice confusion between mass and weight there, the two are different things all together. 1kg on the Earth would be 1kg near the sun. Once more this leaves me to question your understanding of more complex concepts and furthermore even more basic concepts.

The speed of light as near as we have been able to measure it in different environments, is constant. It will decrease slightly through dense mediums but it is near as makes no odds a constant. Space probes around the Earth, the sun and further out, also have time of flight for their signals and responses that are consistent with a constant speed of light, sure this is not a galaxy away but locally I think we are good.

Light years away we can observe the light curves of supernova which are powered by radioactive decay, it has been possible to observe the light curves that would be expected from the decay of Nickel and Cobalt for example and the energy distribution fits observation of nuclear decay here on the Earth. As we apply the old E=mc^2 to go from a nucleus mass difference to energy for these decays, observations like this add evidence that the speed of light in these instances is the same.

anyway, this has been said many many times before and it has been ignored many many times.

Juuust thought my avatar would enjoy getting in here..

originally posted by: kx12x
a reply to: knightsofcydonia

Sorry, but that's not how it works. If you make a claim, you provide the proof.

The fact that he had failed elementary and multiple wives?

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

LOL! I hope you were joking.

Even if he did these things, what does that have to do with theory of relativity?

"I'm sorry but this is how it works."

What works, reality?

This isn't your research and yet you make claims that Einstein was a fraud based on it, with 0 "actual" proof and totally overlooking the part of the video where he said he would provide a proof of concept 18 months ago.

So where is it?

Someday the laws of physics may be rewritten by actual scientists, you however won't be one of them.

Prove me wrong.

I couldn't find any evidence of your video on JSTOR, could you provide a primary source? Or...are videos now considered scientific experimentation?

originally posted by: KrzYma
E=mc2

E - energy, what energy ??
some say kinetic energy, kinetic energy of what ?? a virtual (non existent) particle like photon ?

m - mass, what mass ??
1kg on the Earth is 1kg because on Earth gravitational
acceleration is 9.81 m/s^2
the same 1kg on the Sun with gravitational acceleration of 274 m/s2
or 28.0 times that of the Earth is 28kg

c - the speed of light, measured here on Earth, not near the Sun or Alpha Centauri
or in any Galaxy billions light years away.

you should not calculate with this equation.

I'm not smart enough to address the energy or speed of light questions you have, but I did pay enough attention in math and science class to know that you are confused about the basics of mass vs. weight.

Here is some decent study material to clear up the confusion:

To understand the differences we need to compare a few points: 1) Mass is a measurement of the amount of matter something contains, while Weight is the measurement of the pull of gravity on an object. 2) Mass is measured by using a balance comparing a known amount of matter to an unknown amount of matter. Weight is measured on a scale. 3) The Mass of an object doesn't change when an object's location changes. Weight, on the otherhand does change with location.

Source

Einstein is far from a fraud, especially if you base this claim on the E=MC^2 equation (and gross misunderstandings of basic concepts like mass). This equation has been useful in more ways than can be listed in a simple forum post.

originally posted by: Agent_USA_Supporter

originally posted by: kx12x
a reply to: knightsofcydonia

Sorry, but that's not how it works. If you make a claim, you provide the proof.

The fact that he had failed elementary and multiple wives?

So E= nothing, and E=mc2 is wrong because ... Einstein had multiple wives?

Wow so glad we cleared that up. At least it's not aliens.

Most intelligent and accurate response yet.Thank you!a reply to: six67seven

a reply to: ErosA433

Nice confusion between mass and weight there, the two are different things all together. 1kg on the Earth would be 1kg near the sun.

Sure but, is it my confusion ??
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and the source
www.emc2-explained.info...
can you see the kilogram in there ???

...Mass is measured in kilograms (kg), with 1kg about the same as 2.2 pounds...

Note how the units were dealt with and that kg m2 s-2 is the same as joules

Are you denying the fact that some amount of matter, that weighs 1kg on Earth, weighs 28kg on the Sun's surface ?
Are you denying the fact that some "official" source with the name emc2-explained.info uses kg in this equation ??

Once more this leaves me to question your understanding of more complex concepts and furthermore even more basic concepts.

I doesn't matter how often you will doubt my knowledge and understanding,
please look in the mirror first !!
you've said

1kg on the Earth would be 1kg near the sun.

your criticism on me must come from self-experience I think
with this statement you show to everybody that you have no understanding of the basics like gravity at all

a reply to: ChaosComplex
I know that, looks like other "official" sources do not know

a reply to: KrzYma

Are you denying the fact that some amount of matter, that weighs 1kg on Earth, weighs 28kg on the Sun's surface ?

The thing you don't understand is that mass and weight are two different things. No matter what it weighs, it still has the same mass. The mass doesn't change.

If you have 1 billion atoms of hydrogen, it is still 1 billion atoms of hydrogen whether its on Earth or on the Sun's surface.

Calculaiting Mass.

The weight of an object is the force of gravity exerted on that object. The mass of an object is the amount of matter it has, and it stays the same wherever you are, regardless of gravity. That's why an object that has 20 kilograms of mass on earth also has 20 kilograms of mass while on the moon, even though it would only weigh 1/6 as much. It weighs 1/6 as much on the moon because the force of gravity is much less on the moon than it is on earth. Read on for information about and tips on calculating weight from mass.

www.wikihow.com...

The difference between the rest mass of a bound system and of the unbound parts is the binding energy of the system, if this energy has been removed after binding. For example, a water molecule weighs a little less than two free hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom; the minuscule mass difference is the energy that is needed to split the molecule into three individual atoms (divided by c2), and which was given off as heat when the molecule formed (this heat had mass). Likewise, a stick of dynamite in theory weighs a little bit more than the fragments after the explosion, but this is true only so long as the fragments are cooled and the heat removed. In this case the mass difference is the energy/heat that is released when the dynamite explodes, and when this heat escapes, the mass associated with it escapes, only to be deposited in the surroundings which absorb the heat (so that total mass is conserved).

en.wikipedia.org...–energy_equivalence

Mass-Energy equivalence basically proves e=mc2 through and through. And conservation of energy and a bunch of other sciencey stuff. And if you don't believe, light a stick of dynamite, calculate the energy expended and weigh it as it's blowing your head through the ceiling. Scouts honour this experiment works.

Are you denying the fact that some amount of matter, that weighs 1kg on Earth, weighs 28kg on the Sun's surface ?

The matter has the same mass. The weight of the matter is different.

Are you denying the fact that some "official" source with the name emc2-explained.info uses kg in this equation ??

Yes, because they calculated its mass. Spooky I know, they aren't saying how much it weighs.

I doesn't matter how often you will doubt my knowledge and understanding,
please look in the mirror first !!

Knowledge and understanding eh?

a reply to: boncho

If you have 1 billion atoms of hydrogen, it is still 1 billion atoms of hydrogen whether its on Earth or on the Sun's surface.

OK, than enlighten me and tell me what number you will put into E=mc2 for mass of those 1 billion atoms of hydrogen