It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Face the Nation: Kashkari, Vinograd, Gates
Missed the second half of the show? The latest on...Neel Kashkari, the Minneapolis Federal Reserve president, tells "Face the Nation" that "it's certainly possible" unemployment will continue to tick up and there will be some economic "cooling" over the next few weeks", CBS News contributor Sam Vinograd, an Obama administration Homeland Security official, tells "Face the Nation" that she is "less concerned" about the terrorism threat from people coming through the border than "a bad actor who...
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
Einstiens Thoery of Relativity can be Scientificly proven wrong for under $100.00 using
Probabilistic proof
&
Constructive Proof
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 58%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 68%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 40%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 59%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes, there is Constructive mathematics proof right now the theory of General Relativity and Newtons Law of Gravity are wrong.
To simplify the whole process for everyone including you Jack there is a list of ratio’s to a circles circumference. In this list the value of Pi does not exist on precise ratio values are located in this list. There is then a second list of less precise valies we call approximation Pi by fact a part of that list.
Due to this mathematical proof established before scientific method is applied there is then a scientific experiment which can be conducted by most all people with a general knowledge of grade school mathematics to confirm the mathematical data. All for under $100.00
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
E = Mc^2 when corrected is written E ≈ Mc^2
There is a List of circumference ratio. There is a list of Circumference approximation. Pi is only in the list of approximation and therefor is not in question of being in the list of ratio.
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
Relativity is unquestionably man made.
  Considerate: 92%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
It doesn't prove ZeusAres42 it is a mathematical calculation that is right or wrong and yes it is wrong. The theorem describes how any point of mass attracts another in the universe.
It is written this way which is wrong R : F = G(m1 m2) /R^2Correctly it is written this way R : F ≈ G(m1 m2) /R^2
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
This thread is basically a bunch of dumb people who have no idea what they are talking about, bluffing each other that they are really smart and know more than the best scientists who ever lived.
  Considerate: 43%  
  Substantial: 52%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
Explain it to us then. You are obviously the expert here that knows what he is talking about. What is it that we don't know exactly? Since you know this subject so well, perhaps you could also explain it in a way that even a 5 year old could understand. Please, I really want you to educate me.
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 90%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.68  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
No as creator I can assure you the thread is about how almsot anyone can prove Einstine is wrong for under $100.00 ....
  Considerate: 48%  
  Substantial: 76%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.76  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
There are no experts here. You seriously believe a physics expert would be spending time arguing with laymen on the internet?
Honestly.
  Considerate: 83%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.34  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
Allow me please...
You can be instucted to create two list useing basic math...
List (A)
List (B)
A scientific method can them be used to confirm the constructive mathmatic poof once and for all Einstine is wrong...
What the Constructive proof establishes is relativity is manmade...relativity is not general.....Law of mathematical relation....
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.22  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 58%  
  Learn More About Debra
ZeusAres42 is a welcome participant ...no one need be an expert to contribute to the process of brain storming taking place...I had a productive Covid Quarantine and was able to finish some ongoing work ahead of schedule.
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 61%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 71%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 65%  
  Learn More About Debra
That's fantastic. The problem is that you're writing absolute nonsense and as someone with only a very basic knowledge of physics and math it is perfectly evident to me that you don't understand either. You're literally writing gibberish.
  Considerate: 56%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.16  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes you did, right here (sarcasm notwithstanding):-
You're attempting to have a conversation about physics. The entire thread is about physics.
That's correct, and the irony is that I know very little about physics.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.6  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Takes a special kind of person to say openly they cannot understand a basic idea of math le two list............Thank you for that laugh it is priceless…..
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.14  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
You're attempting to have a conversation about physics. The entire thread is about physics.
No, you make a assumption that Einstein was a physicist and therefore could only ever make a physics mistake to undermine the theory. As it turns out the mistake was in basic mathematics error that destroys theory of General relativity not a calculus issue.
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
You haven't explained any basic idea of math. You've copied the Newtonian equation for gravity from Wikipedia (incorrectly) and changed the equals symbol to an approximately equals symbol. I'm not sure what exactly is wrong with you.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.1  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 88%  
  Learn More About Debra
For your own sake I hope that's sarcasm.
Number one, mathematics is the language of physics. Number two, you haven't shown any evidence that Einstein's math is wrong. Doing so would require a basic knowledge of physics, and since you lack that, you're very probably not going to be swiping the Nobel Prize. Sorry bud.
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.74  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
E = Mc^2 when corrected is written E ≈ Mc^2
lol wining a Noble Prize does not keep Einstines thoery valid...........
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 87%  
  Learn More About Debra
That isn't a correction. That's you substituting the equals symbol for an approximately equals symbol. In plain English, you're claiming that the equation isn't completely accurate, not correcting it. Please don't take offence to this question, but have you ever been diagnosed with any form of mental illness?
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.06  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
I must be going blind. I can't see the word "physics" here mentioned here anywhere. Also, please point out where I said anything that implied I think I know more than the smartest people that ever lived because I can't find myself having said or implied this anywhere. But it's clear that you inferred it somehow but the question is how? hmmm.?
Then how can you be so sure of yourself that none of us know what we are talking about when you know very little here yourself? And you still haven't explained how this is the case which I keep asking. No examples, no explanations, or anything; just assertions that we're all du-mb and that you know more than the whole of us. hmmm? So, you're just here to tell us how du-mb we are and how much more you know? So you read what each of us has said and then concluded that we all made the same argument which is a dumb one right? Good talk bruh.
Oh, and the other thing I find amusing as well as low is your continuous use of derision of a guy here that obviously has learning difficulties and that this hasn't dawned on you yet even after about 4 or more years of you being here!
Oh yeah, and to answer your previous question about physicists arguing with laymen I will answer by saying I have a couple of friends that are bona fide physicists and I know with 99.9 % certainty that they wouldn't engage in a discussion with the grandiose likes of you (at least not a serious and sober one anyway). No offence btw.
Anywhere here is a toast to the self-educated gentleman (AKA Nomenclature or NOMNOM)
  Considerate: 75%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.42  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
The equation is not accurate at all.Period. Realisticaly the field equaitoin is where I prove Einstine wrong but we are debating if you can prove him wrong not me. Look t the room title.
An equation is right, or it is wrong. When a correction takes place the mistake has been eliminated. You are saying a theory lives forever and they do not. Please Focus... on the work not me...
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 63%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don't think the problem is your eyesight. I think it's likely a mental health problem. That's the only explanation I can possibly fathom for why you'd be discussing gravity, Newton's gravitational constant, Einstein's mass/energy equivalent, but then deny that you're talking about physics.
"No, your honour, I didn't actually say the word physics, so therefore I was discussing badminton."
I would truly like to know what is wrong with you mentally.
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
I can possibly fathom for why you'd be discussing gravity, Newton's gravitational constant, Einstein's mass/energy equivalent
Yes, you can, I said it clearly they both have Pi and this causes an error. I calculated two lists, one of ratio to a circles circumference therefor I have the ability to correct the errors. You not so much... Again, look at the room title.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.46  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 78%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 14%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 86%  
  Learn More About Debra
Roflmao.
No they don't. Energy is equivalent to mass multiplied by the speed of light in a vacuum, squared. It has nothing to do with pi.
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 52%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.7  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
You do enjoy embarrassing yourself don't you?
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.7  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
OK, OK, your honour. I WAS talking about physics, but when I replied, "Explain it to us then. You are obviously the expert here", I wasn't saying Nomenclature was an expert in physics. I was saying he was an expert in badminton.
Is it time for my thorazine yet?
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 67%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
Yes, that's what's happening buddy. These nice young men are going to take you somewhere safe now. You'll be able to have great conversation with them about physics because one of them is an expert in badminton.
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.64  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 84%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.5  
  Sources: 12  
  Relevant (Beta): 79%  
  Learn More About Debra
I don't know anyone who went by the name "Einstine" It doesn't bode well when id-iots like you cannot even spell his name
I just bet you just want to babble on about PI with your usual pile of horse cr-p
  Considerate: 40%  
  Substantial: 74%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.86  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
Thanks Dee for the heads up in Einstine............
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 68%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
Thanks Dee for the heads up in Einstine............
It would be an added bonus if you stopped babbling on about something you know nothing about
  Considerate: 69%  
  Substantial: 70%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.98  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
Energy does not equal mass constant squared.
Energy almost equal mass cosntant squared.
It isn't even a physics mistake as it is over the basic mathmatics of ratio and has nothing to do with the folowing algabra mistake.
As a physics error made by Einstein and physicists alike, Pi cannot be inserted on both sides of the linear algebra equation there was never a negative equivalent declared by Einstein prior. Keep in mind this also destroys the concept of Space Time as the linear mathmatic function using Pi is the fallacy.
The price tag......for a scientific method to confirm the data is under $20.00 in common materials most grade schools students can find without charge in grade school. Paper, pencils, scissors, tape, ruler.
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.4  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
Wow! I changed it from Einstien to Einstine back to Einstien........ Look at the room title Drunk!
Stop mumbling over you drink....your drool is ruining a good Scotch...
You can't bid on something you can't do, which is tell the difference between algabra and grade school ratios.  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 84%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.58  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 28%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 86%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.04  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 64%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 80%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.38  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
I do retain my United States Constitutional Right to be as dumb as the next guy.........
All men are created equal by their creator and all...........lol...
I obsess...it cannot be said blindly to be a good thing…………
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 83%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.04  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
I do retain my United States Constitutional Right to be as dumb as the next guy.
Congratulations in this you have succeeded
  Considerate: 51%  
  Substantial: 59%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 92%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 40%  
  Substantial: 99%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.68  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Stop telling lies. I mentioned nothing about being smart. I fact, I claimed the opposite. The first part however is quite true and easily demonstrable. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, which is why you're busy spamming image posts instead of actually constructing a coherent argument. I've clearly annoyed you by pointing out that you're a dummy, but should I lie and pretend otherwise? I've managed to completely perplex you in the adjacent thread with a simple math problem designed for 13 year olds, so attacking me won't change the reality that you have a low IQ.
  Considerate: 50%  
  Substantial: 91%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.56  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
ROFLMAO.
Buddy, Newton's theory of gravity was debunked in 1915 by Albert Einstein. I suppose I should thank you for proving the point. Maybe I should scour Google to find a suitably mocking image. Lol.
  Considerate: 77%  
  Substantial: 66%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 85%  
  Learn More About Debra
Need I say anymore guys? As I said he does a pretty good job of making himself look silly all by himself.
  Considerate: 67%  
  Substantial: 62%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 64%  
  Learn More About Debra
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.
This is hopeless because you quite evidently have some sort of mental health problem.
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 80%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.2  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 57%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.62  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 57%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 87%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra