Munty13 probably can't bring himself to realize it. Afterall he might have spent a great deal of time on this. I hope it is not a university paper he intended to or already has handed in. Einstein was brilliant, Newton a genius, yet in the evolution of science they may one day be looked at as only pioneers of something greater than we can imagine right now. Unfortunately, for Munty13 it is back to the drawing board.
Was Einstein Wrong?
- Thread starter munty13
- Start date
Munty13 probably can't bring himself to realize it. Afterall he might have spent a great deal of time on this. I hope it is not a university paper he intended to or already has handed in. Einstein was brilliant, Newton a genius, yet in the evolution of science they may one day be looked at as only pioneers of something greater than we can imagine right now. Unfortunately, for Munty13 it is back to the drawing board.
I seriously doubt if he has spent ANY time on it. He's just talking off the top of his head with absolutey NO basis for what he's saying. This is clearly a case of the undereducated talking about something he's spent no effort on researching.
It would take very, very little of his time and resources to do just a bit of studying on the topic - if he'd stop talking just long enough to do it.
Albert Chong,
I can tell you Einstein was wrong about quite a few things in his life, including one time he believed that nothing harnessable could be found from E=Mc^2, but we found that we could harness energy in abudence. He never made E=Mc^2 by the way, but two scientists (i know of) had given up the equation in slightly different forms over the century.
He also never originally believed that the universe was expanding (at all). He believed the vacuum was static, but evidence of redshift in the temperatures of the background stadium of the universe showed it was either expanding or contracting, where expansion seems the most correct with observations. So he never did believe the vacuum was ''slowing down'' as you put it, but rather was completely static with a zero cosmological value for the energy density.
This has shown to be wrong however.
Hi PsychoticEpisode.
Okay, you're halfway there. Remember I have been shrunk to a size where my rate of perception is 10 times faster. Now imagine what happens when I observe EMR.
You observe visible light in the range of deep red, roughly 700 nm to violet, roughly 400 nm. I have been shrunk to a size where my rate of perception is ten times faster. This same visible spectrum that you observe, is now observed by me as having wavelengths that are between 7000nm to 4000 nm. This is infrared. What appears as the visible spectrum to you, shall be observed by me as infrared.
My visible spectrum will appear to be in your range of EMR about 70nm to 40nm. In other words, what appears as extreme UV to you, actually represents my visible spectrum.
How we observe EMR is totally dependent upon the observer. The speed at which light propagates is dependent upon the observer. Each moment that passes within an observers' conscious experience defines how the EMR shall appear to the observer. It is NOT the clock on the wall which defines the speed at which EMR propagates, but the act of observation.
The entire EMR spectrum hinges on the speed at which the brain interprets it. It is not independent of an observer. The frequency of EMR is dependent upon the observer.
It just so happens that we have designed clocks which synchronise our rate of perception, with the frequencies and wavelengths of EMR. If the speed of light was independent of an observer, then an observer who was shrunk to a size where the rate of perception was 10 times faster than a 'normal' observer, should also observe the visible spectrum between 700nm to 400nm. This is clearly not the case.
Now for the behemoth that is Einstein's speed of light. Imagine I have been made so huge that my rate of perception is twice as slow as yours. The motion of the Universe speeds up. What happens to the speed of light that we have been told has a roof limit of 300, 000 km/s? Remember, this is only really defining the speed of light at our current rate of perception. As a giant observer, the new speed limit for the speed of light shall be 600, 000km by the time I count to one.
The constant that we refer to as the speed of light, is really denoting our current rate of perception. It's not about the speed of light being 300,000km/s in a vacuum - it's about asking why the speed of light is 300,000km/s in a vacuum.
It just so happens that we have designed clocks which synchronise our rate of perception, with the frequencies and wavelengths of EMR. If the speed of light was independent of an observer, then an observer who was shrunk to a size where the rate of perception was 10 times faster than a 'normal' observer, should also observe the visible spectrum between 700nm to 400nm. This is clearly not the case.
Now for the behemoth that is Einstein's speed of light. Imagine I have been made so huge that my rate of perception is twice as slow as yours. The motion of the Universe speeds up. What happens to the speed of light that we have been told has a roof limit of 300, 000 km/s? Remember, this is only really defining the speed of light at our current rate of perception. As a giant observer, the new speed limit for the speed of light shall be 600, 000km by the time I count to one.
The constant that we refer to as the speed of light, is really denoting our current rate of perception. It's not about the speed of light being 300,000km/s in a vacuum - it's about asking why the speed of light is 300,000km/s in a vacuum.
Last edited:
Nuts & nonsense!!!
You've had it explained to you NUMEROUS times and yet you pretend not to understand.:bugeye: What ever you do, STAY in school - you need an education BADLY!!!!!!!
You are being obstinate. Why don't you try to examine how your brain currently relates to the EMR spectrum? Think about it. Every moment that you experience, also defines the frequency of EMR you observe. If I am shrunk to a size where my rate of perception is 10 times faster, can you not see that my relationship to the EMR spectrum shall also change?
No, I'm not - it's YOU who is being dense due to a lack of a decent education.
And your last statement is TOTALLY false. Get real, kid, go get a good physics book and spend some time learning REAL science instead of wasting your time here posting nonsense.
You're never going to become any smarter by keeping your head buried in the sand and ignoring facts. Making up your own facts is a pretty stupid approach to anything.
I'll try and keep this simple. What do you think it is which defines the frequencies/wavelengths of the EMR spectrum? Is it the clock on the wall, OR is it your BRAIN?
The fact that you even ask that question shows the HEIGHT and extent of your ignorance!!!!!!! Sheesh - what a dummy!:bugeye: Your silly brain and it's perceptions has NOTHING to do with REALITY!:bugeye:
Humour me Read-Only, and answer the question.
What do you think it is which defines the frequencies/wavelengths of the EMR spectrum? Is it the clock on the wall, OR is it your BRAIN?
See what I mean? You even lack the ability to realize that I DID answer your silly question!:bugeye:
Lol. Sorry. I thought it was another insult. I didn't notice it was an insult AND your answer.
Again - see what I mean? You are so hung up on your false ideas that it dulls your reading comprehension. Little wonder then that you seem unable to learn!
As I said before, go get a decent textbook and stop bothering educated people with your gross misunderstandings. You'll be MUCH better off for it.
I stepped on an ant. Its tiny brain was processing my foot approaching as fast as it could, turning it into slo-mo but the ant didn't move as fast as a mosquito. A garden snail suffered the same fate. Same thing happens to slow natives when big bull elephants give chase.
If I shrink someone and then try and step on them I will probably step on them.
If I shrink someone and then try and step on them I will probably step on them.
Last edited:
Do you realise what you are saying? You are saying that it is a clock which dictates the frequencies of EMR. You are saying the observer is obsolete.
You think nothing of neurology. You think nothing of the way that the human brain has to process reality, from its humble beginnings as it enters your eyes as EMR, and where it is then converted into electrical signals throughout the interior of your brain. This entire elaborate process has been completely deleted from your equation.
I don't think you have any idea at all about how the brain works. You seem to imagine it like a piece of glass, where the outside world literally streams in to your conscious thoughts. You appear to have no idea that your brain even exists.
Maybe this will help get you started: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurology
I'd be careful. This is how serial killers always start-out.