When will Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity be debunked and what will replace it (speculative)?

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by BBalazs


You are attacking me, and you have not one point of attack other then sokething hallucinated by you.
Take a break, and come back, and you will see how far off the path you went.

There is a HUGE difference between correcting and debunking.

In Einstein's case, where the physicists are going is "adding onto" Einstein. I agree that part (only part) of that may include some correction, but non the less it's still adding onto Einstein.



Are the Wright Brother's plane "debunked" because now they have jet engine planes? Ofcourse not; We have improved on it, but it's still a plane.


In Einstein's case, the theory is simply evolving. Like everything else, evolution...

To say that Einstein's theory is about to be debunked would, by implication through definition, also mean that the theory principles that have been applied to clocks in space that are responsible for GPS must also be "debunked."

There is a huge difference between "debunking" the theories responsible for the use GPS (this would lead to no GPS) and "correcting" the theories, which is just fine-tuning, to make the GPS more accurate...

That is a semantics arguement.
I have made my views clear.
The fact that you need his much to explain your version should sufrice, per occams razor of your speculation and emotional being.
I amnot here to argue semantics.
Show me where i showed an unclear understanding of science, and get over sementics, will ya?
Your mind has rarionalized, your stupidity in the past few pages.
I am not going to explain again.
You understand wath i wrote perfectly.
This is not philosophy.
It is now clear to you what i have asked.
Answer it or more on.
If you cant do that, explain your viewpoint to the flat earh people a thousand years ago.
Science is a spiritual journey to understand our surroundings.
Ideas are proposed, some fail, some are built upon.
Call it correction or debunking its up to you.
Show me where i have said newton is a sham.
You are not the kbject of my laughter.
Line after line sou accuse, rather then ask.
Line after line, you claim things inhave not said.
Line after line you ask me to disprove what i have not said.
I have proved all i said thusfar as true.
Your misunderstanding is not my concern.
You can evangalise elsewhere, i hae perfect understaning of science and black swans (you really should read it).
Now sou go into semantics.
I will play your idioitic game, as your squirming entertains me so.
Answer this:
If cern results are confirmed, what impliactions does it have for physics?
Dont get into our physics being used after that, we all know its the case.
Maybe it will be built upon.
Maybe a new path will be found.
A lot of things can happen, but none of us KNOW the answer.
You are just rsint to force sour arrogance and ingorance on me.
This is a speculative thread as indicated.
What is your problem now?
Semanics!?
Really?!
Even hen sour wrong.
Get over it, lighten up, get a life. Read a book: black swans for examples or history or sdientific though.
And come back when you cool off.

I was trying to show more "restraint" in my latest posts; Apparently you have trouble debating the issue and continuously resort to demeaning, rude, belittling me. Your attacks show that your the one being emotional over this.

You have not made your views clear. You thread title and OP talk about debunking Einstein. Than you change the goal posts by saying it's about "correcting" Einstein.

You write, "Show me where i have said newton is a sham."

I NEVER said that you said that Newton is a sham. But, now that you mention it, you did say this:

Yes it will be debunked, just as newton.

- Your Post

Next, you wrote, You can evangalise elsewhere, i hae perfect understaning of science and black swans (you really should read it)."

You are either very ignorant or very lazy. I already wrote (if you, you know, read) that I am NOT religious. I am agnostic. The fact that you are accusing me of evangalising is despicable. I am agnostic, and wrote so above.

I have already answered your question.. You are having reading problems.

You accuse me of evangalising when I'm not even religious; You first say that Newtonian physics is not enough to go to space, I provide you with proof that indeed Newtonian physics is enough, and you don't even address this. You are not being clear. You are not even engaging in debate, you are engaging in personal attacks.

Originally posted by BBalazs
Btw confusion.
Are you interested in this topic or semantics?
Are you intersted in getting to know other viewpoints?
Or are you just intersted in promoting your false assumptions, as a religious zealot.
When will you quote me on something unscientific that i said, besides your semantics?
I would win in a court kf law to use debunked. You do no that, righ?
Especially sincs i clarified my position for you, so egen you may be able to understand?
Btw how many mathematical models are there? What maths i used in school? What marhs is used in higher physics?
You may argue, its building upon, but since one is more precise then the other, i would argue it is a different system altoghether.
Even a small correction, revision results in another sytems
If this wasnt the case, we would not need to have different forms of math.
Is this something thats hard to grasp for you?
You are lost on an aromic level, you fail to see how a sma change can change to whole system and way of thinking.
And you tell me i dont know science, ahen in fact you have jsut demoszrated your ignorance.
You say a small change is no change at all.
Please.

In context a small change is HUGE!
Argue against that. This should be entertaining enough.
This my friend is ignorance defined.

You DIRTY lier, again with the religious stuff!!!

FOR THE THIRD OR FOURTH TIME. I AM NOT RELIGIOUS. Read what I wrote !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am interested in the topics. The topics have to be discussed. For the topics to be discussed, they must be written. For them to be written, one must use the English language. as evidenced by this latest post of yours, the English language escapes you.

Next, a theory that builds on itself DOES NOT mean the theory is debunked?

A small correction does NOT mean a new theory!

You are the one being religious. You are talking about "your beliefs" regarding Relatively, and trying to pass them off as facts. That is called being religious. And that is being non-scientific.

Let's go back to square one.

Your calming Einstein is wrong. / debunked. Please provide evidence and proof.

Currently, Einstein's theory has been subjected to countless tests that have validated the theory. Thus, it's on you, the assert er, to prove why it's debunked.

And before you mention the neutrino's, you need something more than 1 experiment, which still needs to be properly replicated, and peer reviewed, in order to displace Einstein's theory.

So, where the evidence?

reply to post by Confusion42



in theory you could go to the moon based on newton.
however you would be made to do so.
what made it possible is einstien str.
using newton to go to the moon is like aiming a nuclear bomb at a bacteria.
it is a hit and miss.
you would be mad to do so. are you mad?
so einstein and othe maths is needed for a precise plan, not a hit and miss.
what is there not to understand about this?
in theory you could fly to to moon, so what.
you missed the point entirely my friend.

this is evangelize:
Evangelism refers to the practice of relaying information about a particular set of beliefs to others who do not hold those beliefs.

This is exactly what you are doing.
Rather then talk, or ask. You are hallucinating your judgements onto me and forcing your beliefs upon me.
Get over yourself.
I have no problems with einstein or newton.
I follow and understand science.
You missed the whole point of this thread, and now you are attacking me.
You are forcing me not to think about what will happen when einstein is debunked, or corrected.
What right have you to do so?
seriously?
I never argued with science.
If my above reference to newton was misunderstood by you, it is because I presumed that you know more about science and what i was talking about.
my presumption is wrong.
you obviously have no ideas. to you physics is a church and you evangelize.
to me, physics is a spiritual path and i understand in the much broader context.
your idea, that a small change, makes no difference to the system (this is what you evenaglize) is blatantly wrong.
You obviously font believe it yourself, but have used this shameless twist of logic, because you fail to admit you misunderstood what this thread is about.
You are now in the corner, as you realize the ridiculity of your argument.
This is evengaliation to.
You distort to force your view upon me.
You see difference when there is none.
Once again, I do not doubt science.
So why do you attack?
If you cannot speculate. Fine. YOU DONT HAVE TO. NO ONE IS MAEKING YOU.
You have made no point besides you ignorance and arrogance.
Think about it.
Really do.
Are you mad?
I am cool as a refrigerator. No need for emotions here.

Originally posted by BBalazs

When will you quote me on something unscientific that i said, besides your semantics?

edit on 22-1-2012 by BBalazs because: (no reason given)

Regarding things that you have said that are unscientific:

If you want to go to space, you will not use newtonian physics will you know? If you would, back to earth you would plop.

I have provided proof and evidence that you are wrong about this.
___

This quote shows what kind of person you are (and you wheren't even attacking me)

BTW, I will write down your name and when cern results are confirmed, I will hound you and make fun of you at my leisure.

You like to hound people and make fun of them, at your leisure?

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by BBalazs
Btw confusion.
Are you interested in this topic or semantics?
Are you intersted in getting to know other viewpoints?
Or are you just intersted in promoting your false assumptions, as a religious zealot.
When will you quote me on something unscientific that i said, besides your semantics?
I would win in a court kf law to use debunked. You do no that, righ?
Especially sincs i clarified my position for you, so egen you may be able to understand?
Btw how many mathematical models are there? What maths i used in school? What marhs is used in higher physics?
You may argue, its building upon, but since one is more precise then the other, i would argue it is a different system altoghether.
Even a small correction, revision results in another sytems
If this wasnt the case, we would not need to have different forms of math.
Is this something thats hard to grasp for you?
You are lost on an aromic level, you fail to see how a sma change can change to whole system and way of thinking.
And you tell me i dont know science, ahen in fact you have jsut demoszrated your ignorance.
You say a small change is no change at all.
Please.

In context a small change is HUGE!
Argue against that. This should be entertaining enough.
This my friend is ignorance defined.

You DIRTY lier, again with the religious stuff!!!

FOR THE THIRD OR FOURTH TIME. I AM NOT RELIGIOUS. Read what I wrote !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am interested in the topics. The topics have to be discussed. For the topics to be discussed, they must be written. For them to be written, one must use the English language. as evidenced by this latest post of yours, the English language escapes you.

Next, a theory that builds on itself DOES NOT mean the theory is debunked?

A small correction does NOT mean a new theory!

You are the one being religious. You are talking about "your beliefs" regarding Relatively, and trying to pass them off as facts. That is called being religious. And that is being non-scientific.

Let's go back to square one.

Your calming Einstein is wrong. / debunked. Please provide evidence and proof.

Currently, Einstein's theory has been subjected to countless tests that have validated the theory. Thus, it's on you, the assert er, to prove why it's debunked.

And before you mention the neutrino's, you need something more than 1 experiment, which still needs to be properly replicated, and peer reviewed, in order to displace Einstein's theory.

So, where the evidence?

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

oh but you are religious. it just you believe in the church of physics.
I on the other hand am just seeking and knowledge and speculation of what may happen next.
here is what religious means:
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

See, you are forcing your view upon me. Your belief. And I have not even doubted the validity of science, so your really arguing with yourself, not me.
You make broad and invalid assumptions based on me, when I only asked a question.
You force your beliefs on me, even going to the extent as to denying even a small change can change the wholes system completely. You are teaching dogma.
You dogma is that a small change will make no difference. The fact is, a small change makes a HUGE difference, this is what science says also.
yet you are grasping, and using sales analogies, to prove to me something which doesn't exist, and should not be a matter of belief anyway.
You are emotionally charged when this should be an intellectual debate. A debate of the minds.
We can start again sure.
Here is my question again:
"When do you think einsteins special theory of relativity will be corrected, and what do you think will come next, how will things change (speculative)"
I reworded it just for you.
as you can see, there is NO NEED to prove einstein is right at this moment. I am not doubting that at all.
Yes page after page, you force your beliefs upon me, which I do not even count or argue.
I just make a point that science progresses and changes, and small changes can have a huge impact (this is why I bought newton and space up)....
What exactly is wrong with you?
You are talking about something, no one is talking about, at least not me.
Then you have the balls to accuse me that i am defying science?
Where the fcuk do i do that?WHERE? And don't go semantics on me again.
It is simpler to ask a question then to presume.
By not asking and projecting your views on me, you are

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by BBalazs
Btw confusion.
Are you interested in this topic or semantics?
Are you intersted in getting to know other viewpoints?
Or are you just intersted in promoting your false assumptions, as a religious zealot.
When will you quote me on something unscientific that i said, besides your semantics?
I would win in a court kf law to use debunked. You do no that, righ?
Especially sincs i clarified my position for you, so egen you may be able to understand?
Btw how many mathematical models are there? What maths i used in school? What marhs is used in higher physics?
You may argue, its building upon, but since one is more precise then the other, i would argue it is a different system altoghether.
Even a small correction, revision results in another sytems
If this wasnt the case, we would not need to have different forms of math.
Is this something thats hard to grasp for you?
You are lost on an aromic level, you fail to see how a sma change can change to whole system and way of thinking.
And you tell me i dont know science, ahen in fact you have jsut demoszrated your ignorance.
You say a small change is no change at all.
Please.

In context a small change is HUGE!
Argue against that. This should be entertaining enough.
This my friend is ignorance defined.

You DIRTY lier, again with the religious stuff!!!

FOR THE THIRD OR FOURTH TIME. I AM NOT RELIGIOUS. Read what I wrote !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am interested in the topics. The topics have to be discussed. For the topics to be discussed, they must be written. For them to be written, one must use the English language. as evidenced by this latest post of yours, the English language escapes you.

Next, a theory that builds on itself DOES NOT mean the theory is debunked?

A small correction does NOT mean a new theory!

You are the one being religious. You are talking about "your beliefs" regarding Relatively, and trying to pass them off as facts. That is called being religious. And that is being non-scientific.

Let's go back to square one.

Your calming Einstein is wrong. / debunked. Please provide evidence and proof.

Currently, Einstein's theory has been subjected to countless tests that have validated the theory. Thus, it's on you, the assert er, to prove why it's debunked.

And before you mention the neutrino's, you need something more than 1 experiment, which still needs to be properly replicated, and peer reviewed, in order to displace Einstein's theory.

So, where the evidence?

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

here you go hallucinating again. what have i said about GRAVITY? that implies belief?
QUOTE ME.
I have said that all theories are eventually corrected or debunked.
THIS IS NOT A BELIEF.
It is a fact. Or a viewpoint, but not a belief. I have no attachment to it, whereas you are attached to einstein, like the roman icon feeding its young. You cannot think outside the box. you are the very definition of close minden. Want a video to illustrate that?
If you believe science is now finished, that is a belief, and beliefs are all you need to be religious.

Well i thought this thread might be interesting...but it appears to be wrestling match between two souls....the OP asks a question...but when the OP does not get the answers that he himself has a pre drawn conclusion to, he then argues the toss back.

He trys to promote A BOOK one book .....an only BOOK ...one he obviously feels is the answer...the end all and be all book...that refutes what others are saying and one that completely answers (to Him) the very question he is asking...So since he himself has obtained the answers from this wonderful book that negates all others opinions why even bother asking the question in the first place.

I was told as many others have been told throughout youth and growing up..."If you know the answer why bother asking the question"

As far as debunking Einsteins theory of relativity it will either be proved or disproved...but in all cases it will be a expansion of what was presented by him......Do i think that the speed of light is a limiting factor....no....and it never has been.....the limiting factor in the equation is not wether we can travel faster than the speed of light at all is it.....If one understands the equation in my opinion, the limiting factor is the mass....as one appraoches the speed of light the mass just becomes far to great in simple terms.(we wont mention the infinite energy)

as was also so eloquently presented by Aim64c in here the relativity is also based on the twin theory and how time slows down for the twin traveling yet niether twin would realize which one has been doing the traveling...which seems to be perfectly logical to me.....just as when one passes the date line as very crude and simple comparision......when the day is lost or gained you do not realise it now do you other than the fact you have been informed of the occurrance.

Now if the OP has something valuble to add rather than snarky statements about reading black swan...or trying to put in lousy definitions of what debunking is or isn't ...and since he strongly believes the theory of relativity has already been disproved yet asks the question in the OP as though he is one looking for the answers of which he has already pre-drawn conclusions....he may want to rephrase the OP title to Einstein is wrong and i will present the evidence.....It might have turned into an interesting thread.....

now CERN has done some interesting things with LHC

The team which found that neutrinos may travel faster than light has carried out an improved version of their experiment - and confirmed the result.

SOURCE

Now does this one act prove or disprove theory of relativity....nope....not one bit...and if something does travel faster than light one might need to look at the mass of the object concerned and and how it's mass is affected by velocity...the world we live in is a strange and wonderous place and hopefully we are always learning to progress ones own destiny.

now this from wiki pedia...not one of the greastest sources on this planet but has interesting info and ideas....

Examples of FTL proposals are changing the frequency of mass to a higher state by applying high-frequency waves of energy, the Alcubierre drive, and the traversable wormhole, although the physical plausibility of some of these solutions is uncertain.

SOURCE

You can see it is working within the parameters of the equation that was put forward by Einstein(i think it was his mathematician wife) himself.

Now Einstein worked within the confines of the earth labratory where all things are relative to what we have access to here on earth and our earthly knowledge....just as the question of paralell universe and a multiverse....or different dimensions....will all these things that we experience be experienced in the same way there.....Personally i would think not...logically thinking.....and in these circumstances i think all logic goes out the window.

Originally posted by plube
Well i thought this thread might be interesting...but it appears to be wrestling match between two souls....the OP asks a question...but when the OP does not get the answers that he himself has a pre drawn conclusion to, he then argues the toss back.

He trys to promote A BOOK one book .....an only BOOK ...one he obviuosly feels is the answer...the end all and be all book...that refutes what others are saying and one that completely answers (to Him) the very question he is asking...So since he himself has obtained the answers from this wonderful book that negates all others opinions why even bother asking the question in the first place.

I was told as many others have been told throughout youth and growing up..."If you know the answer why bother asking the question"

As far as debunking Einsteins theory of relativity it will either be proved or disproved...but in all cases it will be a expansion of what was presented by him......Do i think that the speed of light is a limiting factor....no....and it never has been.....the limiting factor in the equation is not wether we can travel faster than the speed of light at all is it.....If one understands the equation in my opinion, the limiting factor is the mass....as one appraoches the speed of light the mass just becomes far to great in simple terms.(we wont mention the infinite energy)

as was also so eloquently presented by Aim64c in here the relativity is also based on the twin theory and how time slows down for the twin traveling yet niether twin would realize which one has been doing the traveling...which seems to be perfectly logical to me.....just as when one passes the date line as very crude and simple comparision......when the day is lost or gained you do not realise it now do you other than the fact you have been informed of the occurrance.

Now if the OP has something valuble to add rather than snarky statements about reading black swan...or trying to put in lousy definitions of what debunking is or isn't ...and since he strongly believes the theory of relativity has already been disproved yet asks the question in the OP as though he is one looking for the answers of which he has already pre-drawn conclusions....he may want to rephrase the OP title to Einstein is wrong and i will present the evidence.....It might have turned into an interesting thread.....

of these solutions is uncertain.

SOURCE

You can see it is working within the parameters of the equation that was put forward by Einstein(i think it was his mathematician wife) himself.


what are my predawn conclusion?
QUOTE Me. otherwise it all in you head.
also i don't strongly believe it has been debuted. QUOTE ME.
I merely cite that if it is confirmed, it would have to be explained or replaced, or corrected.
WHERE IS THE BELIEF IN That.
As your explanations.I could argue you ON ALL points, and win, as I happen to have a physicist right here. However I will not, as you have wrote that stuff about me, so you have a preconceived idea. Believe watch you want OR QUOTE what you attribute to me.

oh but you are religious. it just you believe in the church of physics.

No, you are trying to put words in my mouth. This statement shows how disconnected you are. And you are again showing your lack of scientific knowledge. There is no church of physics. You are implying that Relativity equates to "church of physics." This is wrong on many levels.

I on the other hand am just seeking and knowledge and speculation of what may happen next.
here is what religious means:
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

See, you are forcing your view upon me. Your belief. And I have not even doubted the validity of science, so your really arguing with yourself, not me.

Again, your showing a lack of science. In one sentence, your saying I am forcing my view onto yours (I am not, prove it), next sentence your saying my belief. Are you saying that Relativity is a "belief?

You just "doubted the validity of science" by suggesting that Relativity is a belief. It is, in fact, as any proper scientist knows, a scientific theory that has been shown to be correct by countless experiments. It might be expanded upon and such, but it's certainly not a "belief" and saying it's a "belief" shows a lack of scientific understanding.

You make broad and invalid assumptions based on me, when I only asked a question.
You force your beliefs on me, even going to the extent as to denying even a small change can change the wholes system completely. You are teaching dogma.

When did I deny the effects of small change?
You are the one making broad and incorrect assumptions. And you keep attacking.

You dogma is that a small change will make no difference. The fact is, a small change makes a HUGE difference, this is what science says also.
yet you are grasping, and using sales analogies, to prove to me something which doesn't exist, and should not be a matter of belief anyway.

Is something wrong with you?

You do not understand how to converse.

You lie by saying I said things which I did not say. Than you lie some more by saying I am trying to prove it while I in fact I both did NOT say that "a small change will make no difference."

Here it seems your saying that Relativity is a matter of belief and doesn't exist. You have taken the beaten path.

When will you quote me on something unscientific that i said, besides your semantics?

I've quoted you NUMEROUS times. I have quoted you over and over again.

You are living in a dream world.

You are emotionally charged when this should be an intellectual debate. A debate of the minds.
We can start again sure.
Here is my question again:
"When do you think einsteins special theory of relativity will be corrected, and what do you think will come next, how will things change (speculative)"
I reworded it just for you.
as you can see, there is NO NEED to prove einstein is right at this moment. I am not doubting that at all.

Just a second ago you called Relativity a "belief" that is part of a "church of physics."

Now you ask how relativity will be corrected?

How can Relativity, which is a "belief" according to you, be corrected anyhow?

Yes page after page, you force your beliefs upon me, which I do not even count or argue.

Your talking out of your arse. Provide evidence that I am trying to force any sort of beliefs onto anyone. Oh, that's right, you can't, because I didn't !

I just make a point that science progresses and changes, and small changes can have a huge impact (this is why I bought newton and space up)....

According to you, Newtonian physics isn't enough to go to space. I have provided evidence that it is.

Newtonian physics of state of the art when it was force released. When Einstein came along, he produced many works and theories. They didn't debunk Newton. They expanded upon, and perhaps redefined some of Newton stuff, but it certainly wasn't debunked. Einstein also developed work that was simply outside the scope of Newton work altogether.

What exactly is wrong with you?
You are talking about something, no one is talking about, at least not me.
Then you have the balls to accuse me that i am defying science?
Where the fcuk do i do that?WHERE? And don't go semantics on me again.
It is simpler to ask a question then to presume.
By not aski

I have quoted you several times defying science. Yet you lie, ignore that I quoted you, and ask again.

reply to post by Confusion42

you know what.
I offered my explanation for what i said about newton. read it and weep.
you have to know i thing.
i do respect you.
i think we could learn from each other.
you about philosophy and me about science.
so lets start again.
i am willing to play ball with you.
here is the OP:
When will Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity be debunked (or corrected) and what will replace it (speculative)?,

How WOULD YOU PHRASE that?
And don't get into sematics and extremes pls.
Science is not finished.
A small change can have huge implications.
Sayinng it will never be corrected is fine, but then why would you participate?
Knowing that all theories are corrected is not a belief. It is a matter of fact, like saying we will all die someday.
Don't you see how close minded it is to presume that science is finished and NO new THEORIES will ever come to light?
You may believe this. But it is just that, a BELIEF.
I on the other hand do not need to believe to know it will be corrected, expanded upon, maybe even debunked entirely. This is what science and science history is about.
So, I give you a chance, as courtesy, please rephrase how you would ask that question, now knowing what I meant.

Originally posted by Confusion42

oh but you are religious. it just you believe in the church of physics.

No, you are trying to put words in my mouth. This statement shows how disconnected you are. And you are again showing your lack of scientific knowledge. There is no church of physics. You are implying that Relativity equates to "church of physics." This is wrong on many levels.

I on the other hand am just seeking and knowledge and speculation of what may happen next.
here is what religious means:
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

See, you are forcing your view upon me. Your belief. And I have not even doubted the validity of science, so your really arguing with yourself, not me.

Again, your showing a lack of science. In one sentence, your saying I am forcing my view onto yours (I am not, prove it), next sentence your saying my belief. Are you saying that Relativity is a "belief?

You just "doubted the validity of science" by suggesting that Relativity is a belief. It is, in fact, as any proper scientist knows, a scientific theory that has been shown to be correct by countless experiments. It might be expanded upon and such, but it's certainly not a "belief" and saying it's a "belief" shows a lack of scientific understanding.

You make broad and invalid assumptions based on me, when I only asked a question.
You force your beliefs on me, even going to the extent as to denying even a small change can change the wholes system completely. You are teaching dogma.

When did I deny the effects of small change?
You are the one making broad and incorrect assumptions. And you keep attacking.

You dogma is that a small change will make no difference. The fact is, a small change makes a HUGE difference, this is what science says also.
yet you are grasping, and using sales analogies, to prove to me something which doesn't exist, and should not be a matter of belief anyway.

Is something wrong with you?

You do not understand how to converse.

You lie by saying I said things which I did not say. Than you lie some more by saying I am trying to prove it while I in fact I both did NOT say that "a small change will make no difference."

Here it seems your saying that Relativity is a matter of belief and doesn't exist. You have taken the beaten path.

When will you quote me on something unscientific that i said, besides your semantics?

I've quoted you NUMEROUS times. I have quoted you over and over again.

You are living in a dream world.

You are emotionally charged when this should be an intellectual debate. A debate of the minds.
We can start again sure.
Here is my question again:
"When do you think einsteins special theory of relativity will be corrected, and what do you think will come next, how will things change (speculative)"
I reworded it just for you.

What exactly is wrong with you?
You are talking about something, no one is talking about, at least not me.
Then you have the balls to accuse me that i am defying science?
Where the fcuk do i do that?WHERE? And don't go semantics on me again.
It is simpler to ask a question then to presume.
By not aski

I have quoted you several times defying science. Yet you delusional.
I have not put words in your mouth. It is implied from what you have written. You cannot argue that. Or rephrase your examples in context of of conversation.
Also, you don't need a church to be religious. I was just pointing out what you belief system is.
Good laugh though.
Address my newton perspective will ya?

Originally posted by Confusion42

oh but you are religious. it just you believe in the church of physics.

No, you are trying to put words in my mouth. This statement shows how disconnected you are. And you are again showing your lack of scientific knowledge. There is no church of physics. You are implying that Relativity equates to "church of physics." This is wrong on many levels.

I on the other hand am just seeking and knowledge and speculation of what may happen next.
here is what religious means:
Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

See, you are forcing your view upon me. Your belief. And I have not even doubted the validity of science, so your really arguing with yourself, not me.

Again, your showing a lack of science. In one sentence, your saying I am forcing my view onto yours (I am not, prove it), next sentence your saying my belief. Are you saying that Relativity is a "belief?

You just "doubted the validity of science" by suggesting that Relativity is a belief. It is, in fact, as any proper scientist knows, a scientific theory that has been shown to be correct by countless experiments. It might be expanded upon and such, but it's certainly not a "belief" and saying it's a "belief" shows a lack of scientific understanding.

You make broad and invalid assumptions based on me, when I only asked a question.
You force your beliefs on me, even going to the extent as to denying even a small change can change the wholes system completely. You are teaching dogma.

When did I deny the effects of small change?
You are the one making broad and incorrect assumptions. And you keep attacking.

You dogma is that a small change will make no difference. The fact is, a small change makes a HUGE difference, this is what science says also.
yet you are grasping, and using sales analogies, to prove to me something which doesn't exist, and should not be a matter of belief anyway.

Is something wrong with you?

By not aski

I have quoted you several times defying science. Yet you lier, not me.
Show me one place I defied science.
I offered an explanation for newton.
I wrote simplistically because I though YOU KNEW science.
Apperantly not. My mistake.
YOU cannot quote me, yet you lie constantly and I can quote you.
You are a religious nut and lier.
It is proven.

reply to post by BBalazs

E=mc2 has already been debunked. It is not even the full equation. The full equation has not been debunked you are right.
I also think you failed to miss to point of this topic.
Also, if particles can travel faster the the speed of light even your precious equations gone, although prob still used, just as newton, which is also wrong, but perfect for this word.
So don't scam me, you religious nut (einstien religion)
Its not about individual equations, but theories.
Got it?
Now you can take you e=mc2 to another topic, or contribute in the concept of what I wrote.
And I aint wrote nothing on your sacred e=mc2.
Dig?

now i could go through and bring forward your definitions of debunked.....but i dont think it will be effective....the only thing i think you could focus on from what i stated was the fact i disagreed with your approach rather then even considering dicussing the equation at hand....or how the discovery of particles traveling at speeds faster than light....so that alone shows what is said was true in the case of your approach to the thread.

Now as to theories being put forward i don't see any real theories being put forward and the one that was put forward was described by you as......

Oh, no!
I am pretty sure this was not what i was thinking of: GOD theory again.
So this is a good indication maybe of what not to discuss, but I will watch it anyway.

As you could see that would prove very helpful to open discussions would it not....and without looking at the vid you yet agin had a pre drawn conclusions...wether correct or not.

now....if you look into Einsteins theory it works to this date with the knowledge we have at hand....and as our knowledge of the universe increases it dimisses many theories past and present.....The theory of relativity will be no different.....just i said...if one manipulates the mass in the equation then one can travel faster than speed of light.....does that debunk the theory....I would venture a guess and say no.

Now i have a question for you...do you have issue with the Theory....Einstein...Or just people who think Einsteins theory is the end and be all.

I mean what if we could amke a craft in which all mass encapsulated within the craft and the craft itself registers no mass.......

Or we go with the possibility of warp space....say we fold space to bring the farthest reaches with our reach....we shorted the percieved distance....therefore shortening the time it takes to reach said object....therefore the appearance of traveling beyond light speed has just occured.....poof you are there.

Or one thinks of the electron billiard ball effect...but insteads of just being the first ball to strike the rest there is a transference where all energies are passed directly from the first ball and become the last ball in the the chain....

you see one could put forward many possibilities thoughts and ideas.....but as for what we know right now the theory of relativity stands.

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by BBalazs
Btw confusion.
Are you interested in this topic or semantics?
Are you intersted in getting to know other viewpoints?
Or are you just intersted in promoting your false assumptions, as a religious zealot.
When will you quote me on something unscientific that i said, besides your semantics?
I would win in a court kf law to use debunked. You do no that, righ?
Especially sincs i clarified my position for you, so egen you may be able to understand?
Btw how many mathematical models are there? What maths i used in school? What marhs is used in higher physics?
You may argue, its building upon, but since one is more precise then the other, i would argue it is a different system altoghether.
Even a small correction, revision results in another sytems
If this wasnt the case, we would not need to have different forms of math.
Is this something thats hard to grasp for you?
You are lost on an aromic level, you fail to see how a sma change can change to whole system and way of thinking.
And you tell me i dont know science, ahen in fact you have jsut demoszrated your ignorance.
You say a small change is no change at all.
Please.

In context a small change is HUGE!
Argue against that. This should be entertaining enough.
This my friend is ignorance defined.

You DIRTY lier, again with the religious stuff!!!

FOR THE THIRD OR FOURTH TIME. I AM NOT RELIGIOUS. Read what I wrote !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am interested in the topics. The topics have to be discussed. For the topics to be discussed, they must be written. For them to be written, one must use the English language. as evidenced by this latest post of yours, the English language escapes you.

Next, a theory that builds on itself DOES NOT mean the theory is debunked?

A small correction does NOT mean a new theory!

You are the one being religious. You are talking about "your beliefs" regarding Relatively, and trying to pass them off as facts. That is called being religious. And that is being non-scientific.

Let's go back to square one.

Your calming Einstein is wrong. / debunked. Please provide evidence and proof.

Currently, Einstein's theory has been subjected to countless tests that have validated the theory. Thus, it's on you, the assert er, to prove why it's debunked.

And before you mention the neutrino's, you need something more than 1 experiment, which still needs to be properly replicated, and peer reviewed, in order to displace Einstein's theory.

So, where the evidence?

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

here you go hallucinating again. what have i said about GRAVITY? that implies belief?
QUOTE ME.
I have said that all theories are eventually corrected or debunked.
THIS IS NOT A BELIEF.
It is a fact. Or a viewpoint, but not a belief. I have no attachment to it, whereas you are attached to einstein, like the roman icon feeding its young. You cannot think outside the box. you are the very definition of close minden. Want a video to illustrate that?
If you believe science is now finished, that is a belief, and beliefs are all you need to be religious.

Are you responding to me? When did I mention Gravity? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

When did I say anything here regarding Gravity? Next, NO, not all theories are completely debunked. Evolution, for example, has too much evidence / proof to be debunked. Yes, over time, it would evolve and such, but that's not being debunked. AND EVEN if it where (hypothetical) debunked, many elements of the theory would still be incorporated into the new theory.

I never said science is finished, I never said any beliefs.

I am saying that, Einstein has not yet been debunked. To be debunked, all of your theories have to PROVEN FALSE.

Keywords here are PROVEN, and FALSE

So if a new theory comes out, that for example, permits Faster than light travel.. That doesn't mean Relativity is debunked. It means that it has been expanded upon and parts of it have been expanded. Also, it could not even contradict Relativity.

For something to be debunked means to be proven COMPLETELY false.

What your saying.... Let me summarize what your saying on this...

"Einstein will be debunked. Everything he came up with, will be proven false."

Let me summarize what I am saying,

"New physics theories will certainly give us new tools, new information, and even a new way of looking at the Universe. That doesn't mean Einstein will be debunked. That means that he will be expanded upon.

Einstein, nor do his theories, do not say that all problems are solved or even that his theories are "complete."

His theories are more like theoretical frameworks.

You have displayed a limited understanding of science, debate skills, manners, and knowledge.

reply to post by Confusion42


you said:

Just a second ago you called Relativity a "belief" that is part of a "church of physics."

I said no such thing. I gave an analogy of what faith is.
SHOW ME, QUOTE ME WHERE IS SAY RELATIVITY IS PART OF THE CHURCH OF PHYSICS.
Need to be in sentence: church, physics, relativity. 1 sentence.

There you go, you are no a proven lier.
And you are living in a dream world.
Very much so.
Not me.
You see I am aware of the limitations if science, where as you are a knowitall.
Now, that is the very definition of dreamworld. A state of your own creation, where you know everything.
I on the other hand am fully aware of the limitations of all systems.
This is exactly the opposite of dream world, but delusional people are like that.
I would not be surprised if you have a family history of mental illness.
I do not, neither does my family.
You are the see through.
You are THAT delusional.
What is my dreamworld exactly?
TELL ME.

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by BBalazs

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by BBalazs
Btw confusion.
Are you interested in this topic or semantics?
Are you intersted in getting to know other viewpoints?
Or are you just intersted in promoting your false assumptions, as a religious zealot.
When will you quote me on something unscientific that i said, besides your semantics?
I would win in a court kf law to use debunked. You do no that, righ?
Especially sincs i clarified my position for you, so egen you may be able to understand?
Btw how many mathematical models are there? What maths i used in school? What marhs is used in higher physics?
You may argue, its building upon, but since one is more precise then the other, i would argue it is a different system altoghether.
Even a small correction, revision results in another sytems
If this wasnt the case, we would not need to have different forms of math.
Is this something thats hard to grasp for you?
You are lost on an aromic level, you fail to see how a sma change can change to whole system and way of thinking.
And you tell me i dont know science, ahen in fact you have jsut demoszrated your ignorance.
You say a small change is no change at all.
Please.

In context a small change is HUGE!
Argue against that. This should be entertaining enough.
This my friend is ignorance defined.

You DIRTY lier, again with the religious stuff!!!

FOR THE THIRD OR FOURTH TIME. I AM NOT RELIGIOUS. Read what I wrote !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am interested in the topics. The topics have to be discussed. For the topics to be discussed, they must be written. For them to be written, one must use the English language. as evidenced by this latest post of yours, the English language escapes you.

Next, a theory that builds on itself DOES NOT mean the theory is debunked?

A small correction does NOT mean a new theory!

You are the one being religious. You are talking about "your beliefs" regarding Relatively, and trying to pass them off as facts. That is called being religious. And that is being non-scientific.

Let's go back to square one.

Your calming Einstein is wrong. / debunked. Please provide evidence and proof.

Currently, Einstein's theory has been subjected to countless tests that have validated the theory. Thus, it's on you, the assert er, to prove why it's debunked.

And before you mention the neutrino's, you need something more than 1 experiment, which still needs to be properly replicated, and peer reviewed, in order to displace Einstein's theory.

So, where the evidence?

edit on 22-1-2012 by Confusion42 because: (no reason given)

here you go hallucinating again. what have i said about GRAVITY? that implies belief?
QUOTE ME.
I have said that all theories are eventually corrected or debunked.
THIS IS NOT A BELIEF.
It is a fact. Or a viewpoint, but not a belief. I have no attachment to it, whereas you are attached to einstein, like the roman icon feeding its young. You cannot think outside the box. you are the very definition of close minden. Want a video to illustrate that?
If you believe science is now finished, that is a belief, and beliefs are all you need to be religious.

Are you responding to me? When did I mention Gravity? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

When did I say anything here regarding Gravity? Next, NO, not all theories are completely debunked. Evolution, for example, has too much evidence / proof to be debunked. Yes, over time, it would evolve and such, but that's not being debunked. AND EVEN if it where (hypothetical) debunked, many elements of the theory would still be incorporated into the new theory.

I never said science is finished, I never said any beliefs.

I am saying that, Einstein has not yet been debunked. To be debunked, all of your theories have to PROVEN FALSE.

Keywords here are PROVEN, and FALSE

So if a new theory comes out, that for example, permits Faster than light travel.. That doesn't mean Relativity is debunked. It means that it has been expanded upon and parts of it have been expanded. Also, it could not even contradict Relativity.
complete."

His theories are more like theoretical frameworks.

You have displayed a limited understanding of science, debate skills, manners, and knowledge.

evolution is not a theory. its an observation, a fact of life. its like saying, there are males and females.
theres is really no such thing as a theory. It is a very correct observation. So evolution will never be debunked.
Are you grasping at straws?
You are a religious nut.
You just proved it by bringing evolution in.
Not the answer you accepted, right.
Go back to your mental illness my friend.
again you are going to semantics, when i have already admitted perhaps it could be phrased better. however, I have given you a quote for debunk and correction, so get over it.
if semantics is your only argument, you have wasted your time.
YOU DO BELIEVE: you said it will never be debunked, just expand. Semantics. Your belief is coherent in the word you use. try nl p ....My word is without emotion, which is exactly my point.
This is not a thread for crybabies emotionally attached to science.

you are very entertaining I would write that in another world you would be my pet something, grasping at straws, programed to believe, however i have not written that, as you have lost my friend. and that sentence would make your run and appeal to authority.
in fact my physicist and biologist buddy are also laughing their asses off.
you see they never realized they has to believe to do science.
so god luck to you in your future, may you find god or whatever it is you are searching for.
godspeed.
you made my day.
you are on such a basic level, that you fail to even grasp what you write.
you never question science, it is a given for you.
so you do not understand the underlying principles, so you throw you weight around, and you factual knowledge.
you may get kicks out of this, when arguing with likewise religious people or people who do not know science, but you have meet your maker.
you have in essence lost, but you will grumble along for a few more pages. your buddies will second you.
good. after all, the more people say it, the truer it becomes.
in fact you are not religious.
you are a charicature of a religious person.
at least they have blind faith.
you have arrogance, and ignorance, and fail to traps the basics of science.
HUGE FAIL.
or evolutionary dead end on your part.

. . . .

Holy #.

And only a few days ago, I was called all kinds of things because I allow my "e-personality" to be hideously arrogant and derogatory from time to time. Even compared to the unibomber.

Then I come across something like this.

Is it that I am just sane and 'real' enough to get people to pay attention, while characters such as the OP are too incredulous to be bothered with?

.... Meh.

Look... BBalazs:

Scientific models are based off of theories. Theories are based off of observations and logical deductions. As we gain new abilities to observe the universe, new theories will inherently come about. As we grow in capabilities, the limitations of theories will also be tested.

This is why I predict a 'break-down' of physics at the extreme limitations of relativistic velocities. Physics will change because Planck limitations will be encountered in simple subatomic events (such as phenomena generating ohmic heating in electrical conductors).

But we can't test that. It remains part of a theory - part of an abstract model that is already built off of a framework that will be continually challenged as time goes on.

Ultimately - Science is a very philosophical subject. Particle-wave duality draws into question the very existence of particles, while virtual particles are even more vexing - and the answer is almost purely philosophical.

There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature...
As quoted in "The philosophy of Niels Bohr" by Aage Petersen, in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Vol. 19, No. 7 (September 1963); The Genius of Science: A Portrait Gallery (2000) by Abraham Pais, p. 24, and Niels Bohr: Reflections on Subject and Object (2001) by Paul. McEvoy, p. 291

An interesting Bohr quote.

This is, to some degree, why I say reality is a bit of a subjective concept.

It has often been said, and certainly not without justification, that the man of science is a poor philosopher. Why then should it not be the right thing for the physicist to let the philosopher do the philosophizing? Such might indeed be the right thing to do a time when the physicist believes he has at his disposal a rigid system of fundamental laws which are so well established that waves of doubt can't reach them; but it cannot be right at a time when the very foundations of physics itself have become problematic as they are now. At a time like the present, when experience forces us to seek a newer and more solid foundation, the physicist cannot simply surrender to the philosopher the critical contemplation of theoretical foundations; for he himself knows best and feels more surely where the shoe pinches. In looking for an new foundation, he must try to make clear in his own mind just how far the concepts which he uses are justified, and are necessities.

"Physics and Reality" in the Journal of the Franklin Institute Vol. 221, Issue 3 (March 1936)

A particularly relevant quote from Einstein.

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today — and even professional scientists — seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is — in my opinion — the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.

Letter to Robert A. Thorton, Physics Professor at University of Puerto Rico (7 December 1944) [EA-674, Einstein Archive, Hebrew University, Jerusalem]. Thorton had written to Einstein on persuading colleagues of the importance of philosophy of science to scientists (empiricists) and science.

And another Einstein quote.

This is, also, why I say it is very important and interesting to study the people behind the theories.

We get caught up on the theory, and forget about the person who defined it.

Einstein would be tickled to death to see the things we have learned since his time... even more so about the phenomena that challenge his popular theories. I'm sure he would absolutely love to be told that, in 2011; scientists observed faster-than-light neutrinos and confirmed the observation over the next 15 years with multiple reproductions to verify it.

And you can bet that he would be excitedly thinking about what it could mean and how it could change his theories.

But it's all quite philosophical. Concepts like Holographic Theory challenge the very concept of existence. Deciding to discuss physics is deciding to accept our existence as real in the first place... and it all diverges from there.

reply to post by plube


You are deflecting.
You said i had some beliefe systam and preconcieved notion.
You have not shown it, you have not quoted me.
You are now changing the topic.
I have no problem wih einstein, etc, so quite hallucinaing or quote me saying so.
I am a systems thinker.
As far as systems as concerned, science is a process of sicovery.
It is not an end all, know all.
It is a sytem (science) to understanding our surroundings, but as even a small change would create a different sytem entirley, i think only in terms or knowledge.
Now, i know for a fact that it is an ever evolving system.
It is not wrong.
Physics is not concerned about what the truth is or what is right.
If you attach these feelings, you are in essence religiousizing science.
Science is based on systems ans undertand our surroundings.
Truth has no value here.
Our undersanding will always evolve.
What may be consideres impossible, impropable today, may well be a fact tommorow.
All systems are upgraded (debunked, corrected) or thrown away.
The way the sytstem works, doesn change (observation, results, etc).
This is matter of fact.
If you say einstein will never be upgraded you are in essence saying we know it all.
We do not.
Its a matter of time only.
Science is not about being right, it is a system of observations itself.
No one is denying science.
But when you get emotional atteched to words (debunk), you will not see the big picture.
Claiming to know it all, and saying something will not get deunked, cirrected is just as much speculation as saying it will.
Accept there is considerably more proof on the side on debunkment, as it has happened many times before.
To be aware of our current limitations is logic and skepticism itslef.
To shamelessy promote eternity of a theory on the false assumption of what debunking is, is the same as religious fervour. Promoting jesus is the saviour.
He well be, but he may also be not.
It is only common sense to think outside the box.
If sou don like it dont join.
As for your explantions, i could easily counterpoint. But why?
You are in effect saying einstein will never be debunked.
Ye you misunderstand theory and equations.
Maybe some equations will be limitedly used, but the theory itslef is debunked.
It is a big difference.
And yes i could scientificaly argue against your points if you quote my beliefs and such you hallucinated upon me.

Well, I took a break, and have now come back.

All in all, BBalazs, the points have been made, the insults have been thrown, misunderstanding took place, and now the debate should come to an end.

Almost like a cyber - science version of the Republican Debates ; - )

I have nothing against you personally. You deserve your opinion and thoughts.

Next time we engage into debate, both sides need to be more cordial, for the benefit of all.

Regarding this thread, I suggest sense it's your thread, you just (for sake of clarity) state the what the central question is moving forward.

reply to post by BBalazs

Same reply to you as the other guy. Read it.
I understand.
I know more then you probably. Read it and weep, and argue my points, and again dont hallucinate your feelings on me:

reply to post by plube


You are deflecting.
You said i had some beliefe systam and preconcieved notion.
You have not shown it, you have not quoted me.
You are now changing the topic.
I have no problem wih einstein, etc, so quite hallucinaing or quote me saying so.
I am a systems thinker.
As far as systems as concerned, science is a process of sicovery.
It is not an end all, know all.
It is a sytem (science) to understanding our surroundings, but as even a small change would create a different sytem entirley, i think only in terms or knowledge.
Now, i know for a fact that it is an ever evolving system.
It is not wrong.
Physics is not concerned about what the truth is or what is right.
If you attach these feelings, you are in essence religiousizing science.
Science is based on systems ans undertand our surroundings.
Truth has no value here.
Our undersanding will always evolve.
What may be consideres impossible, impropable today, may well be a fact tommorow.
All systems are upgraded (debunked, corrected) or thrown away.
The way the sytstem works, doesn change (observation, results, etc).
This is matter of fact.
If you say einstein will never be upgraded you are in essence saying we know it all.
We do not.
Its a matter of time only.
Science is not about being right, it is a system of observations itself.
No one is denying science.
But when you get emotional atteched to words (debunk), you will not see the big picture.
Claiming to know it all, and saying something will not get deunked, cirrected is just as much speculation as saying it will.
Accept there is considerably more proof on the side on debunkment, as it has happened many times before.
To be aware of our current limitations is logic and skepticism itslef.
To shamelessy promote eternity of a theory on the false assumption of what debunking is, is the same as religious fervour. Promoting jesus is the saviour.
He well be, but he may also be not.
It is only common sense to think outside the box.
If sou don like it dont join.
As for your explantions, i could easily counterpoint. But why?
You are in effect saying einstein will never be debunked.
Ye you misunderstand theory and equations.
Maybe some equations will be limitedly used, but the theory itslef is debunked.
It is a big difference.
And yes i could scientificaly argue against your points if you quote my beliefs and such you hallucinated upon me.