Newton was wrong Einstein was wrong. E does not = mc^2. This is not a crank site.
The internet says: "And I also have an idea for a space ship that could get us out of or solar system in 45 days which is shit and getting."
Wow - it's shit and getting. I never would have thought it. What does that mean anyway? Also - a quick calculation. Assuming the distance from Earth to what we might mark as the edge of the solar system is about 9 billion miles (but you could argue for as much as 27 billion miles). This is about 223,500 km/hour but only if you could instantly launch at that speed. Taking acceleration into account, and the associated fuel and g-forces, it's looking somewhat unlikely to say the least. But then, it is shit and getting... so you never know.
... and now I have your attention...
Newton was wrong, Bohr was wrong, Heisenberg was wrong (But we are uncertain of that), Feynman was wrong, Hoyle was wrong... and the list goes on. All the scientists and physicists were wrong.
At least, that's what the crackpots and cranks would like you to believe, and shortly, I'll illustrate the twaddle and BS that is all too easily found on the Internet. Correcting facts, recognising misconceptions is easy, making those corrections stick seems all but impossible, but what I puzzle over is the personality behind those who deliberately miscommunicate. I don't know why they do it.
Was Newton Wrong? Was Einstein wrong? Was Bohr wrong?
Yes. They were - kind of. Well, not really. It's just that the realm of applicability is bounded.
The Bohr model of the atom holds no modern useful model of the atom beyond a nice description of the periodic table.
Newton's laws don't work at great speed or in strong gravitational fields; and Einstein's general relativity cannot be unified with the electromagnetic, electroweak and strong forces. [[[[ Furthermore, his theory is under pressure from recent careful experiments with neutrinos. Apparently, it looks like they can beat the cosmic speed limit. (This is a really big deal and it's by no means a done deal at the time of writing.)]]]]]
EDIT: This proved to me a measurement error. Einstein stands.
Although all these theories are "wrong", it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter because in a sense all theories are either wrong because they don't work under some special conditions, or they are blatantly provably totally wrong because observation won't back them up. But herein lies an important distinction. To advance science, you observe, wonder how, why, and essentially make a guess. Then you find a way to test the guess. First, it has to be self consistent. Then it has to agree with accepted laws of physics. It has to be free, or usefully free of 'infinities' where the equations essentially break down at a singularity. And it needs to be peer-reviewed, and tested by experiment. Then it needs to be further tested, and tested again in different ways, by independent researchers, and this cycle continues until the theory is so far away from wrong, that it makes sense at some point to call it a discovery. Some of these ideas are so solid and immutable that they become laws. Examples of laws are those of thermodynamics, carrier capacity of information channels, the equivalence principal, conservation of momentum, energy, information and so on.
Even with that status, as in Newton's laws, there is an opening to break the 'status quo' as in the case of Einstein's relativity.
This 'status quo' for some reason is one of the things that pseudo science BS artists latch on to. For some reason, anyone who supports the disgusting 'status quo' has limited imagination, is brainwashed, stuck in a mind-set and hampered by their advanced education. The supporter of the 'status quo' is seen as a co-conspirator of evil governments or a blind puppet or stupid sheep. Apparently large organisations inevitably seek to suppress revolutionary technology. Apparently the oil companies execute inventors or send them broke, or alternatively pay them off handsomely. The loan-inventor using kitchen equipment, a few magnets and no idea what is a differential equation... is waaaay smarter than those idiot mainstream scientists and physicists (what is it about magnets?).
Not even wrong
If you are brave enough to try and counter one of these nut-jobs, then it really is like pushing shit up hill. Actually that shit is more like diarrhoea, and your only tool is a toothpick. Here are a few examples:
"IE by adjusting the resonant frequency of particles or clusters, the speed limit of the speed of light can and will be exceeded through exponential resonant acceleration."
BS, BS, BS, mumble mumble rhubarb rhubarb. TA-DAAAH ! Faster than light.
"we are taught that the opposite of division is multiplication but this is not true. the opposite of division is singularity which is not multiplication. Multiplication is the reverse of division! this needs to be understood to do the maths to test this equation."
Oh dear. Where to begin? Firstly, 'opposite' in this context should be 'inverse'. I have no idea what is meant by "the inverse of division is singularity". It seems that reverse should be inverse, but reverse is not opposite, or opposite is not reverse. Cripes - I need to understand all that before testing this equation. No wonder all the real physicists can't do it.
"Albert Eisenstein also bent light with magnets."
Really? With magnets? Since the photon has no electric charge, that's not possible. Who is this Eisenstein character anyway and why have I never heard of him? I guess that's one of those conspiracy things. All the textbooks and all the lectures, and all the professors in the world are secretly collaborating to hide this dirty little secret from the masses. Unless... he means the gravitational attraction of a magnet can bend light. Yes - I'm happy with that. It's true too, marginally. If the magnet was super big so you could actually measure the effect.
"Waite if you move a conductor threw a magnetic field it becomes charged magnetism is def the secret to life and space and time"
I guess this is one of those 'not even wrong' cases. I mean, how the heck can you counter an argument like this? It's hardly even a sentence. There are no magnetic charges. Maxwell's equations say so, and masses and masses of experimental attempts show not even a hint of a real magnetic monopole. The closest you get is a theoretical construct by Dirac. In this idea, it's an infinitely long magnetic object with one end visible. It's called a Dirac String. Some theories don't exclude them, some rely on them. There is no experimental evidence for one. The other is a similar thing found in spin-ice, but this is just an approximation. The models of monopoles in spin-ice are still dipoles in practice.
Yup - this is def the secret to life. NOT!
"But i will tell you this there is no such thing is perpetual motion and if and one thinks they can achieve it there wrong and it tell me they don't know what gravity is it a electric charge to be precise. but when u have a charge and electron move u have a magnetic field so the electric charge or magnetism could be gravity"
True - there are no perpetual motion machines. True, people who think they can make one are wrong.
We know what gravity is, at least in the context of general relativity (It's a warping of spacetime). What we don't know is why. False, gravity is not an electric charge (to be precise).
True when an electron moves there is a magnetic field. I don't know why you need a charge and an electron, since an electron is charged anyway. How he comes to the conclusion that this means electric charge or magnetism could be gravity is quite puzzling. Accidentally, it's sort of right in the sense that everything exhibits a gravitational attraction - even a photon, but this is not the context in which he writes. He is trying to assert/reason that gravity and magnetism are one and the same.
"In the case of a Black Hole, the velocity of photons flowing inwards must equal the velocity of dark particles flowing outwards - hence why all we see is BLACK. This is PERFECT EQUILIBRIUM or the true ZERO STATE."
I have no issue with wild speculation in the right context, or playful intellectual dancing with silliness to get the creative juices flowing, but stating such garbage as if it were a legitimate explanation is incredibly saddening. Is this a reflection of our education system? Have these people been failed by the system or are they unteachable?
"It seems to me that all viable light is created from fiction (heat) and invisible light is the last stage of this process"
I had to include that one... just because of the serendipitous typos.
"A black hole, whilst it has little or no mass, defines an enormous amount of space, it even defines light and therefore holds more energy than light despite being of relatively small field of matter."
This is the first time that I've read someone state that a black hole has little or no mass. I am not sure whether he means 'defines space' or simply 'occupies space'. What 'defines light' means, I have no clue, and why this means that a black hole has more energy than light totally escapes me. To top it off, suddenly, he introduces something called a field of matter. The level of confusion here is un-freaking believable, and totally impossible to unwravel.
"Add entropy into the mix, and you're on you're way to prove Newton and Einstien wrong about gravity. So far, this postulation carries a potentially vast signifigance."
And then we get the troll who has done a bit of scientific lexicographic stamp-collecting, displays them in a leather-bound presentation book and places it in full public view as a psudo-scientific potential noballs prize ripe for the picking. Roll up, roll up. Get your oven mitts on and start baking that entropy mix. Be sure to only half-bake it. The path to fame, wealth and riches awaits.
Here come the crowds...
"Hmmmmmmmmm. Interesting. You do realize that if you're right, that many physicists will object to you and this wonderful work. They should jump on board and explore the realm of what your saying, but many will be mad for their inability to see something so obvious sitting right in their faces. I commend you for the guts you have."
I quote, "many physicists will object". Ahem. How about all of them? And many normal people too.
Am I pissed off?
You bet. It's not only the level of ignorance. It's not just the total lack of comprehension. It's not just the complete and utter tangle of confusion about very basic scientific ideas. It's not wholly the unbelievable failure of an education system. It's not even the lack of proper sentence structure and spelling.
I am pissed off because these people DO NOT WANT TO LEARN. I wasted my time trying to help some people understand. Instead, it was like peeing gasoline onto a fire, with all the concomitant ramifications. It's a tar-baby. Helping these people is not only impossible, helping it makes it worse. Like cutting the head off a hydra it's one step forward, and two back. They suck in perfectly good facts, barf up a load of dice-carrots, peas and corn (even though that's not what went in), and put it on display like contemporary art in the grand unified museum of BS.
But what really pisses me off is that these people somehow find a way to draw in and dazzle intelligent people who are legitimately seeking knowledge. It's hard enough sorting out the misconceptions which exist as artefacts of superseded mainstream science - like the Brontosaurus or the Bohr model which should, in my opinion be taught in history, not science.
I got called a bully, was told I had no imagination, am brainwashed, short-sighted, a member of the 'status quo', a fool and could never advance and think outside the box. Maybe I even work for an OIL COMPANY.
I'll leave you with one fact to take away:
"Astronomers do not know what causes seasons." (Apparently)
... and one piece of advice. Don't believe everything you read. I wish I had the Internet when I was starting out. But I also wonder how much more difficult if would be with so many frogs and so few suitably gendered eligible members of a royal family.
Is Manna in the wild ...See results without voting
More by this Author
I wondered how many muscles there are in the human face. It seems like an easy question but in reality there is not a readily useful consensus on the internet. So I decided to use this as an illustration as to why it is...
Find out the physics behind a crazy equation that Farnsworth wrote on the blackboard at Mars University. There is a lot more to it that you might realise.
In ancient China, craftsmen used skimmed milk and rennet with a little lime to produce a very good water resistant glue. You can do something similar using just skimmed milk and vinegar.