Thank you for that complete waste of time.
Argument supporting existence of a God
- Thread starter SaintAndrew
- Start date
- Status
Thank you for that complete waste of time.
Yeah, it's wrong. It should by the "approximately equals to" symbol, as in my sig.
One of a number of mistakes that have been identified in his paper.
"Accurate." Not "true."
See my sig.
I'm not programmed that way.
Seeya. :wave:
I am surely a glutton for punishment...
E=mc2+what?
Please tell us all, just what did Einstein miss?
So what's approximate about it?
E=mc2+what?
Please tell us all, just what did Einstein miss?
Right Divider
Body part
How about it?
If someone wants to split this conversation off onto another thread, that would be fine with me but it's not as if 85% of this thread hasn't been on this topic (somehow), so...
Right Divider
Body part
Just because 85% is off-topic....never mind.
Seems like post 12 was where we started talking about energy...
genuineoriginal
New member
My supposition is that the aether is really the quantum field and that way the mass of bodies like the Earth affect aether causes light to bend instead of travelling in a straight line.
He didn't miss anything, really. The formula is derived from the first term of a Taylor series. A Taylor series is an infinite series of sums to approximate a formula; the more terms used, the more accurate.
All Einstein did was use the wrong "equals" symbol.
There are bigger mistakes elsewhere.
This is what happens when OP disappears.
More like 99.93%, but who's counting :idunno:
genuineoriginal
New member
Would that be you that is counting?
:noid:
I mean, I don't disagree with you. In fact, I sort of expected this exchange to have gotten squashed quite a while ago precisely because it has nothing at all to do with the OP but it never did so we just kept going. We didn't take over the thread intentionally, it just sort of happened.
Like I said, I'm happy to have someone split this conversation off onto a new thread, I just don't see the need at this point.
If the formula isn't missing anything then it cannot be an approximation!
If the mass is known and the speed of light is known then the energy that the mass could be converted into is also known.
The formula does not say nor does Einstein's maths imply that if you convert a certain amount of mass into energy that you'd get something close to the mass times the speed of light. There is nothing so fuzzy about his math. In fact, the limiting factor to the precision is not the formula at all but the precision of the measuring devises. And boy oh boy do we have some whoppers when it comes to precision measuring devises. We can detect variations in the mass of individual hydrogen atoms.
Further, the sort of math you are talking about allows you to see where a number is going. You don't have to calculate it to exhaustion to understand what the result it approaching. Pi is equal to the circumference of a circle divided by it's diameter (π = C/d). That is not approximately true nor is it approximately accurate (same exact thing, by the way). It is PRECISELY correct. The fact that Pi is an irrational number, and thus any numerical rendering of Pi is only approximate, is not relevant to whether that formula is approximate. And that's not even that great of an analogy because there are no irrational variables in E=mc2!
The bottom line is that it makes no sense whatsoever to call Einstein's equations "approximations", and your admission that Einstein didn't miss anything is an admission that you know as much.
My supposition is that the aether is really the quantum field and that way the mass of bodies like the Earth affect aether causes light to bend instead of travelling in a straight line.
The problem is that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity predicts with a great deal of precision just how much light should be deflected by massive bodies. It's very predictable and thus very testable and it has been tested over and over and over again and never have they observed anything that would cast doubt on Einstein's gravitational lensing. In fact, the better our instruments get, the more Einstein's theories are confirmed. The math doesn't just work on paper and in theory but it actually works in real life. Scientists make these observations, do the calculations and come up with a result that is then used in other science which comes up with still more results that is very often used in still more science and no one ever comes up with a result that causes them to stop and say, "Uh oh! That didn't work! Einstein's gravitational lensing idea must be wrong!" That just does not ever happen. Instead, just the reverse happens. Einstein's theories just keep on getting confirmed.
Dwarf star bends light, confirms Einstein
By Deborah Byrd in Human World | Space | June 10, 2017
Which is not to say, by the way, that Einstein was right about space and time being real things. That is an interpretation of his maths. In other words, Einstein's theories say that light bends around stars AS THOUGH the mass of the star was warping space. That does not mean that it is actually doing so. There could be other things that we don't yet know about that could account for the effect other than the bending of space itself, which makes no sense. I mean, in what direction is space bent? There is no way to answer that question that makes any sense.
Far Queue
|
|
|
|
|
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT!
|
|
|
|
V
:nuke:
|
|
|
|
|
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT!
|
|
|
|
V
:nuke:
glorydaz
Well-known member
I think it's a bit of drama. :idunno:
- Status