Comments by "pinball1970" (@pinball1970) on "These Experiments Could Prove Einstein Wrong" video.

@wprandall2452 Why don't you submit your thesis to a peer reviewed physics panel? Proving Einstein wrong will get you the Nobel.
1
@wprandall2452 Do you have a PhD in physics? A degree? If not why do you think you would be able to make a contribution?
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 Einstein was not an experimentalist, that does not mean he was not a physicist. He was the greatest physicist of all time with one only one exception, Issac Newton. According to many polls anyway.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 Nope, he had a very practical mind. That is why he was so productive at the patent office. You said he was a philosopher? Now you are saying he was a Mathematician?
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 His theories have all held up. He was prepared to change his mind when he was wrong. SR and GR still holding strong. EPR had significance for QM. He challenged the QM community, he understood it well.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 I disagree, philosophy discussion is not allowed on physics forums. The best physics forum IMO.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 You are missing the point, Einstein said the particles could not communicate in this way, it suggested reality was not local. He thought that there must be some sort of hidden variables that QM was missing. John Bell formulated a way to test it. They did so in the 1970s which led to the Nobel this year. Einstein made an argument in the 1930s that was still important in 2022, even when his guess was wrong!
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 He REALIZED the importance of Lorentz he USED the mathematics of Riemann, he developed a framework for the universe in GR and did not trust his own equation. He was wrong, that is fine because unlike other steady state proponents he ACCEPTED the new data. That is what good Science is about, learning techniques and ideas and using them in a new way.
1
@wprandall2452 Publish, get famous and win the Nobel.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 Yes you are missing the point. Entangled particles exhibit complimentary characteristics and have a combined wave function. That was not the key feature of the EPR or work that came after.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 And no this is nothing to do with a magnetic field as that propagates at C. We are talking about non locality. I really don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 You are connecting a lot of random names and welll understood concepts/theories and just repeating them without much understanding. There is ZERO evidence that C is not the universal speed limit, professional Scientists have been trying to falsify it since 1905. C pops out of Maxwell's equations, C was measured before that. Causality insists this is correct according to Lorentz, Einstein just realized the consequences. As I said SR and GR have been rigorously tested and passed every test. No Physicists will say this is the complete answer, not until QM and GR are reconciled.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 Not air, a vacuum.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 Gravitational lensing was seen by Hubble in the 90s and again by the JWST. This effect has been confirmed, you can actually see it in the images. Einstein was right about that too.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 No, the cosmological constant was introduced to get rid of a problem, an expanding Universe. It turns out this add on is now one of the most important questions in physics. So something Einstein introduced 100 years ago in now still at cutting edge Science.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 No, I am not a fascist, i just know some physics.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 The rest you posted was incoherent rambling nonsense. Stop reading conspiracy garbage and study real physics.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 I am referring to documented main stream literature.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 Yes and many of them tested rigorously like GR and SR. Can you forward a citation from a peer reviewed article from a mainstream respected journal that demonstrates Einstein was wrong about those theories?
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 Formalize your ideas into a series of papers and submit them to a Scientific journal for publication.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 You have five degrees including medicine? That's about 15 years at university. When did you get time to learn physics?
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 Ok. You did not say how long it took to get all those degrees. Also, why not submit your main treatment of GR and SR in two papers to the main physics journals first and get their view? Anyone can publish a book really. David Icke is published.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 So are you a GP?
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 My first job was NMR. If you can put together a mathematical framework of your thesis that explains all the phenomena GR explains as accurately as it currently does I assure you that you will get published. If it explains some of the holes where GR fails? Like QM, black holes and the beginning of the universe? The Nobel. I am not being facetious.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 Einstein did not develop GR just because of the perihelion of mercury. SR worked but did not have gravity/acceleration. It was a 'special' case. In fact his paper did not even contain those words. It was, 'on the electrodynamics of moving bodies.' Like I said it up has stood up to scrutiny and assumes C in the universal speed limit. If you can upend that? As I said in my post you will most certainly get the Nobel. I think John Bell may have got it had he not died so young. Aspect and the others essentially proved Einstein wrong by using Bells theorem.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 So you are a radiographer?
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 We cannot "see" black holes, we observe the motion of bodies around them. In terms of radiation, I would look up the Event Horizon Project. Two black holes captured including Sagittarius A in our own milky way. First was M37 in 2019. No surprise Penrose got the Nobel not long after.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 That is not what it was, Einstein was thinking about acceleration and gravity being part of the same phenomenon. His thought experiment which he called his 'most beautiful' idea. From GR all the cosmological models have sprung including those for black holes.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 No, I don't know what that is, I know what gamma radiation is.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 You think that I do not know things well? Seriously? Have you seen how many corrections I have made to your posts? Really sir. And yes, of course you will need a mathematical framework to your thesis. What do you think physics is? Discussion on YouTube?
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 I already told you that it was Einstein who realized the significance of the Lorentz transform. I did not say he came up with it, Lorentz did that strangely enough!
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 If you cannot apply maths to your physical theory of the universe then it is worthless.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 Eh?
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 HUP Is nothing whatsoever to do with wave particle duality. That itself is an outdated concept. You have have no clue what you are talking about.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 look. You may by be a decent person, good father and law abiding citizen. I am not attacking you. Your posts regarding physics do not reflect published literature, this is not even being discussed.
1
@user-dialectic-scietist1 Read back what you posted, it has no correlation with science.
1
@TheLoneMitten No she didn't. She did get bad part of the bargain in the marriage but she did not pass her degree. He discussed his ideas her and other people but he was the architect.
1
@TheLoneMitten Nothing to do with my ego, I have just read stuff on him.
1
@DaBeezKneez GR has worked for over 100 years but is incompatible or incomplete wrt QM. It is not wrong as such.
1