Einstein's theories are false (Page 2) theHating: Projecting your own issues on to other people, hmm. I see you've gotten to chapter 8: how to manipulate from the Handbook For Abusive Fathers. theHating:  weakDid you take enough tryhardlenol? I suggest tryharderlenol: extra strength, anti-douchey  (Post deleted by AchillesSinatra ) theHating: Achilles, you said earlier that you have internalized some bullshit about albert einstein from your spiritual enlightenment journey on the big world wide web. Dont let my shyness deter you from correcting the record which currently builds iphones, space ships, and that shitty home internet connection that you have. Feel free to post nudes at the end of your cute conspiracy against the global institution's best thinkers. Go ahead and use 2nd hand sources as "reputable peer-reviewed articles" and then get mad when i point out 99% of the peers disagree. Anyway, im dreaming of jeannie now, so post your strawmens so we can all orgasm our feeble walnut brains upon them justabigjoke: Mobile phones, GPS, computers have zero to do with the BS fake "psyence" of Einstein. Real Physics allows engineers to make these inventions function, but none use anything to do with the crap called special and general relativity. Its a fraud, a lie, and designed to control the education system. If you want a job in education, you have to agree to it, its an article of faith. You have to agree to subvert your own ideas and accept the deception of the Zionists and Relativity is the litmus test. Like the BS of the Holocaust is used to manipulate people,, get them to hate the white European countries. The "victims" who cry "they hate us" are in fact the very people most hate filled, most murderous, most vile, most racist group of scum ever to walk upright. Did I leave anything out? I say these things out of love, its only drawing people together in a common cause to denounce evil. theHating: Or he deleted himself, either way it is a satisfactory feeling to see bitches win bitch-prizes Angry Beaver: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/07/supermassive-black-hole-vindicates-einstein-again-sagittarius-a-star/  kittybobo34: Justabigjoke,, You said Einsteins theory had nothing to do with cell phones and GPS,, The time delay and atomic clocks used to make it work are based on his theorys  Sir Loin: The 2 anti Einstein contributors here really are arrogant pricks. At least Einstein showed some humility AchillesSinatra: Re: the above two posts. Einstein was indeed a man of humility; among other things, he was quite aware of the problem of underdetermination, i.e., that any body of evidence may be compatible with a plurality of theories, thus committing oneself to the literal truth of any given theory is a risky business indeed. What do the posters above expect from us: to slavishly and unquestioningly accept the truth of Einstein's theories? To turn off our brains, in other words? Be my guest. Be my sheep I'll reproduce below something I originally posted in my own "Should We Believe What Scientists Say?" thread... Presumably the (unhelpful) post above is meant in jest; the implication being that one would be very foolish indeed not to believe Einstein's theories. Well, let's focus only on Einstein's magnum opus, the general theory of relativity (hereafter GR), and pose the question: Ought a rational person believe in the literal truth of GR? To say that a theory is "literally true" is to say that it is a faithful representation of reality; it gets both observable and unobservable reality right; the entities and mechanisms posited by the theory actually do exist as described. It's the kind of position adopted by a scientific realist. This would be contrasted with the stance of an empiricist or instrumentalist, for example, positions that I am more sympathetic to myself. Before continuing, it might be salutary to clarify the distinction between a theory (in conjunction with the inescapable auxiliary hypotheses) yielding consequences (or "predictions" if you prefer) which are true, and the theory ITSELF being true. It is not in any doubt that GR yields true predictions, some quite counterintuitive, as is well known, and some true to quite a breathtaking degree of accuracy. But then again, the theory of phlogiston yields true consequences. So does the theory of the luminiferous aether, the caloric theory of heat, and the Ptolemaic theory of cosmology. So does the theory "All Americans are James Cagney". So does almost any other scientific theory you might name, dead or alive. None of the aforementioned theories is now considered true, the veracity of the consequences that can be derived from them notwithstanding. What reasons, then, do we have to be wary of committing to a belief in the literal truth of GR? Here are a few: 1. If Wireclub had been around in the year 1800, say, the poster above might have written: "Here is an example of "science" that is simply one big error, yet many educated people actually believe it, despite the myriad of examples of where and how it fails. It's basically every theory of Newton. All are total garbage. The theories on which much of "modern physics" is now based, is a fraud." Newton's theories, that of gravitation in particular, were taken almost unanimously by the scientific community to be literally true for two centuries or more. They are now universally regarded as false. No physicist, that I know of anyway, now believes gravity to be an attractive force that acts instantaneously over any distance against a backdrop of absolute space and absolute time. Yes, yes, we know all about the instrumental efficacy of Newton's theories -- "got us to the Moon" and all that. To repeat once more, that Newtonian mechanics yields (approximately) true consequences in most everyday circumstances is not disputed. Remember, so do the other above-mentioned extinct theories, to a greater or lesser degree. That Newtonian mechanics is LITERALLY true, on the other hand, is believed by no serious thinker I am aware of. 2. The argument from pessimistic induction. The history of science reveals a graveyard of dead theories, even those most highly confirmed and regarded as most likely to be true. GR is indeed, by any standard, an extraordinarily successful theory. The history of science, however, teaches us -- time and time again -- that a theory's success is a poor indicator of its truth. For anyone interested, the locus classicus for the pessimistic induction argument is Larry Laudan's monograph "A Confutation of Convergent Realism". 3. GR is already known to be untrue insofar as it is incompatible with quantum mechanics. The predictions it yields at the quantum level are hopelessly inaccurate, and by a simple modus tollens, if the consequences of a theory are false, then the theory is false. Period. An objector might protest that it is true "in its own domain" or suchlike. This is a trap that must be avoided: "It may seem tempting to say that later theories simply provide localized readjustments and that the old theories continue to hold good provided only that we suitably restrict their domains of purported validity. On such a view, it is tempting to say: "Einstein's theory does not replace Newton's; it does not actually disagree with Newton's at all but simply sets limits to the the region of phenomena (large-scale, slow-moving objects) where Newton's theory works perfectly well". Such temptations must be resisted. To yield to them is like saying that "All swans are white" is true all right; we just have to be cautious about its domain limitation and take care not to apply it to Australia. This sort of position comes down, in the final analysis, to the unhelpful truism that a theory works where a theory works." -- Nicholas Rescher, "The Limits of Science" 4. Einstein himself, cautious sage that he was, vacillated on whether his own theory ought to be regarded as a faithful representation of reality, i.e., on whether or not it should be believed to be literally true. In his younger years, Einstein was enormously influenced, as were so many other physicists of the period, by the thoughts of Ernst Mach. Mach was an antirealist of sorts. That is to say, the job of science, on the Machian account, is merely that of description; to systematize our experience of regularities in nature. All talk of "going behind the scenes" and producing literally true causal-explanatory theories was anathema to an antirealist like Mach, and a great many others like him, both then and now. In other words, in his early career, Einstein was effectively saying "My theory ought not to be believed as being literally true". It was only later, owing to his well documented dissatisfaction with quantum mechanics, that the great man switched to a realist stance. Philosopher of science, Arthur Fine, explains... "In particular, following his conversion [from antirealism to realism], Einstein wanted to claim genuine reality for the central theoretical entities of his general theory, the four-dimensional space-time manifold, and associated tensor fields. This is a serious business for if we grant his claim, then not only do space and time cease to be real, but so do virtually all of the usual dynamical qualities." vphaxg: You should read my page. I think relativity is wrong, I am the one who claimed it and passed it around. You are riding my dick. I didn't read this though, your premise seems flawed. A true scientist should always be listened to and you tell such by their axiomatic views and methodology. AchillesSinatra: "You should read my page." I can't imagine why I'd want to do that. All I've seen from you so far is unintelligible word salad. | Science Chat Room 1 Person Chatting Similar Conversations |
