Can you prove Einstein wrong?

Nomenclature

@ZeusAres42

Need I say anymore guys? As I said he does a pretty good job of making himself look silly all by himself.

Open a book you hilariously inept dolt.

Einstein showed Newton was wrong about gravity.

Nomenclature

@ZeusAres42

Pleas explain in simple terms how Einstein Disproved Newton's law of universal gravitation

Translation: I know how to use Google to find silly images when I want to mock people, but I don't know how to use it to learn physics for 13 year olds.

Lmao.

ZeusAres42

Nomenclature said:

@ZeusAres42

@Nomenclature

Ok, let's just humour you for a second. Pleas explain in simple terms how Einstein Disproved Newton's law of universal gravitation. Please tell this is in simple terms. Or are you just going to continue to be a coward and avoid answering and just keep putting words in my mouth like before?

Open a book you hilariously inept dolt.

Einstein showed Newton was wrong about gravity.

 

ZeusAres42

@Nomenclature ; 

Nomenclature

Argument Topic: Why Are You Using A Debate Site?

@ZeusAres42

I don't understand why you're using this site. You clearly aren't interested in debate. So far all you've done is make a series of incredibly daft comments and when these are pointed out to you you respond either by laughing or attacking the person who draws attention to your utterly shocking lack of basic education.

ZeusAres42

@Nomenclature ; 

ZeusAres42

Nomenclature said:

@ZeusAres42

I don't understand why you're using this site. You clearly aren't interested in debate. S

Not with you no. I prefer to toy instead because it's easy and fun. You become very interesting the more drunk I get.

Nomenclature

@ZeusAres42

Not with you no.

There you go again, with the incredibly daft comments. I'm the only person you've replied to in the last hour. You've written back to me over twelve times during that period.

ZeusAres42

@Nomenclature

John_C_87

Nomenclature said:

@John_C_87

Energy does not equal mass constant squared.
Energy almost equals mass constant squared.

Can you even read English, John? I literally wrote this out for you. There is no mass constant. Energy is equivalent to mass multiplied by the maximum speed of light, squared. 

In mathematical sciences, not English grammar... the source of energy, as light spoken becomes constant as the shape of all geometric energy as a "sun" is seen as a circle? It is not ever recorded in the geometric shape of a square...? I do not believe you Nomenclature does not mean I am mentally I'll when you have no scientific data to back your claim. You repeat a conclusion built off a long history of corrupted algebra to which Einstein had not personal goal to improve, I have ever read about....Pi must have a negative counterpart to be responsibly used in a linear equation. I agree he was much smarter than you, but I also do not agree he not intelligent enough to know his own mathematical wall.

Last, I had read in English, French and script Chinese the sun has mass...........and is round.....

 What cam I say...sometimes I find emotional reassurance from math information that comes from languages other then those in my comfort zone...

Nomenclature

@ZeusAres42

If you're bored then spend some time educating yourself instead of spamming the board with insipid mage posts which have nothing to do with debate. Why don't you start with learning how Einstein proved Newtonian gravity to be incorrect? 

ZeusAres42

@Nomenclature ;

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

In mathematical sciences, not English grammar.

There is no mass constant in either "mathematical sciences" or English grammar. Mass is a variable. Please stop talking.

ZeusAres42

Nomenclature said:

@ZeusAres42

If you're bored then spend some time educating yourself instead of spamming the board with insipid mage posts which have nothing to do with debate. Why don't you start with learning how Einstein proved Newtonian gravity to be incorrect? 

I am waiting for you to explain it to me. Why should I read a whole paper when you can sum this up very quickly as you are obviously way ahead than me on this. All I am asking is you to explain this and to do it in a way that even kids in their first schools years can understand. Is that really too much to ask?

Can you also explain that paper to me. There is a lot of stuff there that in unfamiliar to me. If you would be so kind please.

John_C_87

Nomenclature said:

@ZeusAres42
 Why don't you start with learning how Einstein proved Newtonian gravity to be incorrect? 

Because Newtons Law Gravity & Einstein’s theory are wrong for the same reason...

The challenge of the debate was to prove Einstein was wrong....This would mean even if you knew as fact he was right….

John_C_87

Oh! know I can read English........

Nomenclature

@ZeusAres42

I am waiting for you to explain it to me 

I'm not explaining things to you which you should have learned in 8th grade. If you skipped school it's your own fault. Your education isn't my responsibility.

ZeusAres42

Nomenclature said:

@ZeusAres42

I am waiting for you to explain it to me 

I'm not explaining things to you which you should have learned in 8th grade. If you skipped school it's your own fault. Your education isn't my responsibility.

But you made the claim that Newton was wrong about Gravity and the way you go about supporting your claim is by just saying Einstein proved him wrong and post some paper about how some scientists now think Einstein might be wrong about gravity (obviously you didn't read that paper). And then you just play tit for tat by commenting on my education whereby I did this to you earlier as it is obvious that you are drop out that probably never graduated high school unsurprisingly?  And then say go and learn about it. That your idea of debate right? Your idea of how you should back up your claims?

And if you are going to play tit for tat at least  use your own style and not copy mine. Are you a window? You're very transparent bruh!

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42
I would love too...............try....

Pi has a claim to fame of having over a million digits.......
That is Nine-Hundered, ninedy eight digits past precise.....
A ratio is pricise an aproximation is not and can not be a million digits long.

Another name for a circles diamter is chord......
The diamter if a circle is the longest and last chord any and all circles have......
The diamter is never the only chord a circle will ever have.......mathmatically....

Nomenclature

@ZeusAres42

But you made the claim that Newton was wrong about Gravity

That's a scientific fact, not a claim. You can read about it on any one of a thousand different internet sites. I even linked you to one, but you ignored it because you aren't well in the mind.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

The challenge of the debate was to prove Einstein was wrong

When do you plan to start?

ZeusAres42

Argument Topic: NOM doesn't know how the burdon of proof works

Nomenclature said:

@ZeusAres42

But you made the claim that Newton was wrong about Gravity

That's a scientific fact, not a claim. You can read about it on any one of a thousand different internet sites. I even linked you to one, but you ignored it because you aren't well in the mind.

You made the claim. Now you back it up. If is a fact then point it out and explain it or just admit you can't do it. Still waiting for you to explain the paper to me you linked too. Or just admit you can't do that either.

Nomenclature

@ZeusAres42

NOM doesn't know how the burdon of proof works

Burden. For God's sake, is the big red line underneath your elementary spelling errors not a big enough clue?

Nomenclature

@ZeusAres42

You made the claim. Now you back it up.

I backed it up hours ago with a link which you completely ignored. Do you dispute that the Earth is round also? How about evolution? 

Debate requires participants to possess a certain level of basic knowledge about the world. 

Swolliw

@Nomenclature

 I know how to use Google to find silly images when I want to mock people, but I don't know how to use it to learn physics for 13 year olds......

.......Zat is because I am alvays right and you are all just inferior underlings, now, get out from underneass my cloud...shnell, shnell!

ZeusAres42

deleted

John_C_87

So what does someone need to by scientific method prove Einstiein wrong.

1. Paper.
2. Pencil
3 Scotch tape
4 Ruler
5 Scissors
That is all....

Note:
Please if required ask for help when cutting with scissors.

ZeusAres42

deleted

Nomenclature

@ZeusAres42

You're wasting your time with nom. Not much you can say to a guy that claims there is no such thing as gravity.

Why do you lie so much? Did your parents not love you enough? You should maybe speak to someone about that, instead of spending your life writing pointless nonsense on the internet.

ZeusAres42

@Nomenclature ;

Nomenclature

@ZeusAres42

I pity anybody who sits on the internet all day making up lies about other people. It's truly pathetic. 

John_C_87

I backed it up hours ago with a link which you completely ignored. Do you dispute that the Earth is round also? How about evolution? 

Without summeriziing the basic mathic proof of your argument....you backed nothing up........Poser!

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

Without summeriziing the basic mathic proof of your argument

That's either really bad English or really good Russian. Not sure which.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

Poser

That's particularly amusing coming from the illiterate guy who has spent three days claiming to be able to prove the greatest scientist of the last four hundred years wrong.

John_C_87

That's particularly amusing coming from the illiterate guy who has spent three days claiming to be able to prove the greatest scientist of the last four hundred years wrong.

You do not need to reply you are off topic.......which is why you are posing............Greatest scientis? Doubtful the list of scientists making astounding contributions to the field go well past Einstien. 

Einstein had been proven wrong and you need to lie to insist it never happend...

What this forum is working twards is showing grade school students and other people how they can pove Einstein wrong with every day househod iteams.....for under $100.00

You can't contribute mathmatic corrections to basic math mistake Einstein made. You dispaly no ablilaty to understand calculus in this descussion, you do not translate a understanding the math required to calculate mass of object.....

I can only believe you are in some third world communist country, or detention center in which my posts are intercepted and changed so you cannot read them…and the posts really look like gibberish to you.

John_C_87

Извините Excuse me... If you observation is so bad you question your wom ablilaties to tell the difference between Russian and English......... You really do not belong here...that is just sad....

John_C_87

Correction:
If you observation is so bad you question your own ablilaties to tell the difference between Russian and English.........

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

You do not need to reply you are off topic.......which is why you are posing

I'm off topic because I'm not arrogant or delusional enough to believe I can prove the greatest scientist of the last 400 years wrong.

Greatest scientis? Doubtful 

No it isn't. General relativity is the single most successful scientific theory of all time. It has been tested on thousands of occasions, by people much, much smarter than you, and it has held up to scrutiny each and every time. Your idea of "proving Einstein wrong" by changing the equals sign in an equation you don't even understand to an approximately equals sign is right up there with the most ridiculous and delusional things anybody has ever said.

John_C_87

I would like to point out a rather significant issue with the idea of multiplying the diameter of a circle with Pi to get an approximation to use in algebra. Other then not all numbers when divided create ratio. Mixing Pi with the concept of time like Einstein attempted to do has a risk as the geometric compass which is 360 degrees has no zero to produce inverse operations......This is and had proven to be an insurmountable obstacle when creating promotion of approximation of circumference length using short cuts like Pi.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

 the geometric compass which is 360 degrees has no zero to produce inverse operations.

Inverse operations are not produced from zero. The inverse of zero is zero.

Also, I explained to you last night that Einstein used pi in some of his field equations to express the fact that gravitational fields form a sphere. They extend out equally in all directions from the source. Math is used in the Einsteinian field equations to describe real world phenomena, and pi is part of the equation for calculating the area of a sphere. Ponting out that pi can't be expressed as a rational number (and hence must always be approximated) in no way proves Einstein wrong.

John_C_87

Inverse operations are not produced from zero. The inverse of zero is zero.

Let me hold your hand here for a bit........and spoon feed you...

The compass that is used in geometry does not have a zero, it reads from 1 degree to 360 degrees...therefore the inverse of zero is not zero it doesn't exist in linear algebra thus the reason to lie about Pi when addressing the area of a sphere of circle.

I'm off topic because I'm not arrogant or delusional enough to believe I can prove the greatest scientist of the last 400 years wrong. 

Yes I appear arrogant by the style of debate you bring to the table you are ignored as you contradict yourself………..  you claim Pi is precise but yet magically it is only prices  because  it was the choice of the wrong chord. The most popular approximation ever made in history because it is not influenced by its own irrational state by opinion not mathematical fact. There was a lot of field work needing to be done in mathematics before Einstein moved Pi into algebra.....

Ponting out that pi can't be expressed as a rational number (and hence must always be approximated) in no way proves Einstein wrong.

Yes it does prove without doubt in all ways for no other reason it means the theory of gederal relativity becomes fact and no longer theory by jsut rewriting the theory E = Mc^2 as  E ≈ Mc^2. What makes the math a theory is Einstein intorduce a irational vlue as a ratio without calculus correction.

 

John_C_87

Yes it does prove without doubt in all ways for no other reason it means the theory of general relativity becomes fact and no longer theory by just rewriting the theory E = Mc^2 as  E ≈ Mc^2. What makes the math a theory is Einstein introduce a irrational value as a ratio without calculus correction.

John_C_87

Now, I am making a call to address the most cost effective and easy way to establish by scientific method Einstein was wrong. When I address if I am more intelligent then Einstein I will release the calculus he should have equated and published before he even began relativity in the first place. I am more intrigued and driven by the wroks of Galileo, Newton, and Helein then Einstein.

Nomenclature

Let me hold your hand here for a bit........and spoon feed you...
The compass that is used in geometry does not have a zero

Lmfao. John, we are not arguing about whether the compass used in geometry has a zero. You already said that in your last post. You claimed that the lack of a zero means that inverse operations cannot be performed, and that is demonstrably false. If c = πd then therefore d = c/π. The problem with you "holding my hand" is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Let's just take your first line as an example:-

The compass that is used in geometry does not have a zero, it reads from 1 degree to 360 degrees...therefore the inverse of zero is not zero it doesn't exist in linear algebra

Firstly, the inverse of zero is always zero. Secondly, the first part of your sentence is about geometry, while the second part of your sentence is about linear algebra, which are two different things. Zero most certainly does exist in linear algebra. 

The Pivotal Role of Zero in Linear Algebra

https://www.math.hawaii.edu/~lee/linear/Zero.pdf

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

John, let me hold your hand for a moment and explain a few things which you don't appear to be grasping.

We can deduce that the Ideal (and Galileo tells us that this is true) can thereby determine in its totality the architectonic of human reason. There can be no doubt that the things in themselves are the mere results of the power of the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, a blind but indispensable function of the soul; thus, natural causes, so regarded, abstract from all content of knowledge. There can be no doubt that the things in themselves, as I have elsewhere shown, should only be used as a canon for time. For these reasons, what we have alone been able to show is that our faculties can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like pure logic, they stand in need to speculative principles, because of the relation between the practical employment of the transcendental aesthetic and the Antinomies.

The noumena (and we can deduce that this is the case) stand in need to the Ideal of natural reason. The transcendental unity of apperception, for example, is a body of demonstrated science, and none of it must be known a posteriori, because of the relation between our a priori knowledge and the objects in space and time. As is evident upon close examination, let us suppose that our judgements are just as necessary as the things in themselves. Since knowledge of the Categories is a posteriori, the phenomena exclude the possibility of, still, metaphysics. Space is the clue to the discovery of applied logic.

There can be no doubt that the transcendental aesthetic excludes the possibility of, consequently, time, as is shown in the writings of Hume. Certainly, it must not be supposed that necessity stands in need of our ampliative judgements. In the study of necessity, our experience is what first gives rise to our concepts. By means of analytic unity, our analytic judgements, so regarded, exist in our concepts; for these reasons, space, so far as regards the thing in itself and our ideas, may not contradict itself, but it is still possible that it may be in contradictions with the manifold. It is obvious that, in so far as this expounds the sufficient rules of the manifold, philosophy, in other words, is by its very nature contradictory. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, our experience excludes the possibility of, irrespective of all empirical conditions, natural causes. I assert, consequently, that the employment of the objects in space and time would be falsified, as we have already seen.

Since knowledge of the Antinomies is a posteriori, natural causes, in accordance with the principles of our ideas, can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like philosophy, they have nothing to do with ampliative principles, and our understanding depends on the architectonic of pure reason. It must not be supposed that transcendental logic can be treated like the architectonic of pure reason. By virtue of pure reason, our faculties prove the validity of our ideas. Time proves the validity of, in so far as this expounds the necessary rules of necessity, our sense perceptions. As we have already seen, Aristotle tells us that, in the full sense of these terms, our understanding, when thus treated as the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions, is by its very nature contradictory.

Time, for these reasons, occupies part of the sphere of the Transcendental Deduction concerning the existence of our judgements in general. Our understanding would thereby be made to contradict our sense perceptions, since knowledge of the Categories is a posteriori. It is not at all certain that the thing in itself would thereby be made to contradict, therefore, the phenomena. The objects in space and time, in particular, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of this body must be known a priori, as will easily be shown in the next section. (Natural causes are by their very nature contradictory.) Our ideas (and what we have alone been able to show is that this is the case) are a representation of the architectonic of human reason. I assert that the things in themselves have nothing to do with natural causes; in the case of pure logic, the Transcendental Deduction depends on the things in themselves.

Transcendental logic is by its very nature contradictory; certainly, the Transcendental Deduction proves the validity of, in respect of the intelligible character, the objects in space and time. In the case of the discipline of natural reason, let us suppose that the things in themselves occupy part of the sphere of necessity concerning the existence of the phenomena in general, as is proven in the ontological manuals. By virtue of practical reason, the Antinomies exist in our knowledge, yet our faculties can never, as a whole, furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like necessity, they exclude the possibility of disjunctive principles. The reader should be careful to observe that our concepts, even as this relates to the discipline of natural reason, constitute a body of demonstrated doctrine, and all of this body must be known a posteriori, since some of natural causes are a priori. The paralogisms of practical reason (and we can deduce that this is the case) can not take account of the Categories. Has it ever been suggested that, since knowledge of the things in themselves is a priori, it is obvious that there is a causal connection between the empirical objects in space and time and the objects in space and time? We can deduce that the thing in itself, as I have elsewhere shown, occupies part of the sphere of necessity concerning the existence of our ideas in general. The Transcendental Deduction is by its very nature contradictory, yet our disjunctive judgements have lying before them necessity.

With the sole exception of necessity, the objects in space and time exist in necessity, as any dedicated reader can clearly see. It is not at all certain that, indeed, our ideas exclude the possibility of, so regarded, the transcendental objects in space and time, yet the Transcendental Deduction is by its very nature contradictory. The paralogisms are what first give rise to our concepts; in view of these considerations, formal logic, irrespective of all empirical conditions, is by its very nature contradictory. To avoid all misapprehension, it is necessary to explain that, in reference to ends, the transcendental aesthetic stands in need of the phenomena, and the paralogisms have nothing to do with the Transcendental Deduction. As is shown in the writings of Galileo, Aristotle tells us that the employment of the architectonic of pure reason is what first gives rise to the never-ending regress in the series of empirical conditions; on the other hand, the Categories occupy part of the sphere of pure logic concerning the existence of our sense perceptions in general. And similarly with all the others.

John_C_87

John, let me hold your hand for a moment and explain a few things which you don't appear to be grasping.

You are trying to tell what is to approximately be precise.........not prove precision.

We do not have one chance only to calculate in precision or abstract. The constructive mathematical proof that a ratio is precise and can be used to make up a list of ratio is fact. Whereas the idea that any two things on earth can be arbitrarily divided together to create a ratio by lie appears also to be true as data.

Question: Is Pi not a ratio only because it is a irrational number? 

Collect data: The use of line chords, mathematics division and the use of multiplication inside a circle produce both ratio and approximation. Under all conditions does division and multiplication only create ratio.

Test Hypothesis: When we divide the only numbers in existence 1-9 we receive as result a series of numbers irrational numbers and a series of values which are ratio.

Conclusion: Not all acts of division produce ratio....

I'm not reading all that it written by you it is a waste of time. Have apiont make it. You are not trying to hold my hand you are trying to masturbate my sense of truth and fact about mathematics...........Mathematics Constructive evidence in the form of data guides the use of the scientific method... We are not telling a English literature long story trying to describe a ending, we are to establishing a mathematical truth a step in a new direction....

Dee

@John_C_87

John_C_87

@ Dee

John_C_87

There now we know you are the winner of the debates wasted space award.........

John_C_87

Lmfao. John, we are not arguing about whether the compass used in geometry has a zero. You already said that in your last post. You claimed that the lack of a zero means that inverse operations cannot be performed, and that is demonstrably false. If c = πd then therefore d = c/π. The problem with you "holding my hand" is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Let's just take your first line as an example:-

Agree you are off topic and cannot keep up. You are in fact arguing not debating and you had need to be held like a child. The issue is over resolution in mathematics though centuries coming it is coming none the less. Pi in your words our ability to locate a simple line value length, the zero however is over finding an explanation for algebra as a whole in the use of a circles measurement, a system of numbers between 1 & 360 degrees and there is no zero. I hold your hand because you keep trying to run into the street off topic. What is your bid to prove Einstein wrong.  Lock down a number, if you do not have a bid on cost, why argue? it is not a debate process you are supporting it’s then only a personal denial…