• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is Einstein the idol in Scientific Community? Can True paper refute an idol?

Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
Dear friends, if Einstein's Theory of Relativity is like a god, can I kill it?
F. Nietzsche seems to be "good" in killing true God by saying "God is dead", but I bet he will defend any man-made idol. But the Truth is the destroyer of idols:

One Page Refutation of Theory of Relativity of Einstein, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2006.0082

Indeed, if all is relative, then this fact is absolute. I came to contradiction, thus, all is not relative.
Click to expand...
I can't load the PDF.
How is GR refuted?
 
R

rational experiences

Veteran Member
O God stone/Earth mass....entombed...already deceased. Light gases without light.

Mass is energy at its highest.....cold radiation, fixed and held.

Atmosphere, a body of gases surrounding the Energy mass...owning balances.

Science says my IDOL is to invent, to cause.....I want in my IDOL the coldest form in the Universe, to heat it my own self in a formula to abstract from it.

consider something theoretically or separately from (something else).
"to abstract science and religion from their historical context can lead to anachronism"

O circular/cycle movement is God....owns no beginning and no end, for the cycle is fixed.

Formula….a beginning and an end to claim reaction. Abstract to natural.

Space a vacuum, the law to make gases as light burning to become cold....suck out or cause the light to go out. Dark light, coldest gases.

+ science/maths to calculate for space conditions. Comes to a place + in the circle/cycle, of their owned invention....to invent the coldest IDOL.

Crucifixion darkness - Wikipedia

Science, to want to copy and emulate what the natural heavenly body produces itself O pi first. Yet the atmosphere with light gas carbon point removal keep removing pi O by G spiral. If science wants the highest place in science it is with pi O...yet science says when pi O itself never existed...as always an added on one place past what natural owns. To say invent it for a machine reaction instead.

. - 3 at the side O in timed placement....would be proof that if it went dark from 12 to 3....then in fact science caused that circumstance in space their own persons.

By trying to force the alight atmosphere to become cold so that they could re invent what was first and original O before it changed into and via . carbon point removal in Nature. As the G value.

Why the teaching against changing natural order is real.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
rational experiences said:
O God stone/Earth mass....entombed...already deceased. Light gases without light.

Mass is energy at its highest.....cold radiation, fixed and held.

Atmosphere, a body of gases surrounding the Energy mass...owning balances.

Science says my IDOL is to invent, to cause.....I want in my IDOL the coldest form in the Universe, to heat it my own self in a formula to abstract from it.

consider something theoretically or separately from (something else).
"to abstract science and religion from their historical context can lead to anachronism"

O circular/cycle movement is God....owns no beginning and no end, for the cycle is fixed.

Formula….a beginning and an end to claim reaction. Abstract to natural.

Space a vacuum, the law to make gases as light burning to become cold....suck out or cause the light to go out. Dark light, coldest gases.

+ science/maths to calculate for space conditions. Comes to a place + in the circle/cycle, of their owned invention....to invent the coldest IDOL.

Crucifixion darkness - Wikipedia

Science, to want to copy and emulate what the natural heavenly body produces itself O pi first. Yet the atmosphere with light gas carbon point removal keep removing pi O by G spiral. If science wants the highest place in science it is with pi O...yet science says when pi O itself never existed...as always an added on one place past what natural owns. To say invent it for a machine reaction instead.

. - 3 at the side O in timed placement....would be proof that if it went dark from 12 to 3....then in fact science caused that circumstance in space their own persons.

By trying to force the alight atmosphere to become cold so that they could re invent what was first and original O before it changed into and via . carbon point removal in Nature. As the G value.

Why the teaching against changing natural order is real.
Click to expand...
That is off-topic.
 
joelr

joelr

Well-Known Member
questfortruth said:
Dear friends, if Einstein's Theory of Relativity is like a god, can I kill it?
F. Nietzsche seems to be "good" in killing true God by saying "God is dead", but I bet he will defend any man-made idol. But the Truth is the destroyer of idols:

One Page Refutation of Theory of Relativity of Einstein, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2006.0082

Indeed, if all is relative, then this fact is absolute. I came to contradiction, thus, all is not relative.
Click to expand...


Well first they would have to write the equations for each example rather than just a laypersons explanation. But even the layperson explanation solves both examples. In order to compare clocks one has to accelerate off their world or ball and land on the opposite. Then when comparing clocks they will see everything is working according to relativity. One planet can consider itself as not moving but when you compare clocks you have to get into acceleration and everything works out.

The solution is to use the microwave background radiation which is linked to an absolute reference. It isn't.

If Einsteins theory is like a God then why wouldn't all scientific theories be like Gods? Germ theory? Cell theory? Silly idea.
 
Aupmanyav

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
We have so many idols in science. Sure, Einstein is one, Planck is another, Heisenberg is still another. Newton is one, Galileo is another, Pythogoras also was one and so was Arya Bhatta. As for theories, they are always revisible, improvable. That does not change their status as an idol.
 
Last edited:
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
Dear friends, if Einstein's Theory of Relativity is like a god, can I kill it?
Click to expand...
Like a god? How so?
His theories of relativity were ground breaking insights, and have been very productive, but "godlike?" How about "very useful?"
F. Nietzsche seems to be "good" in killing true God by saying "God is dead", but I bet he will defend any man-made idol. But the Truth is the destroyer of idols:
Click to expand...
Do you understand the context of Nietzsche's statement?
I agree truth is the destroyer of idols. Do you think relativity is untrue?
Indeed, if all is relative, then this fact is absolute. I came to contradiction, thus, all is not relative.
Click to expand...
I don't think you understand what Einstein means by relativity.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
Dear friends, if Einstein's Theory of Relativity is like a god, can I kill it?
F. Nietzsche seems to be "good" in killing true God by saying "God is dead", but I bet he will defend any man-made idol. But the Truth is the destroyer of idols:

One Page Refutation of Theory of Relativity of Einstein, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2006.0082

Indeed, if all is relative, then this fact is absolute. I came to contradiction, thus, all is not relative.
Click to expand...
Einstein is not an "idol", nor are any of his theories "like gods". They are just successful theories, like many others.

If you intend to show Relativity false, you need to produce reproducible observations of nature that do not fit the theory. Mere paper arguments won't do, however good they may be.

Many people have made observations to test Relativity. So far it has passed all these tests. Science is open to the possibility that one day an observation will be made that does not fit it. But that day has not yet arrived.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Aupmanyav said:
We have so many idols in science. Sure, Einstein is one, Planck is another, Heisenberg is still another. Newton is one, Galileo is another, Pythogoras also was one and so was Arya Bhatta. As for theories, they are always revisible, improved. That does not change their status as an idol.
Click to expand...
And Richard Feynman, Charles Darwin, & John Frink.
 
Aupmanyav

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Yeah,and more. CV Raman, S. Chandrashekhar, Jagdish Basu, Satyendra Nath Basu, Meghnada Saha, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Yellapragada Subbarao, etc.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Aupmanyav said:
Yeah,and more. CV Raman, S. Chandrashekhar, Jagdish Basu, Satyendra Nath Basu, Meghnada Saha, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Yellapragada Subbarao, etc.
Click to expand...
I must admit I had only heard of the first two of these. But what about Bose, surely one of the greatest of them all?
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Aupmanyav said:
Yeah,and more. CV Raman, S. Chandrashekhar, Jagdish Basu, Satyendra Nath Basu, Meghnada Saha, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Yellapragada Subbarao, etc.
Click to expand...
I recognize the 2nd one in the list!
(Only cuz of the telescope named after him.)
 
Aupmanyav

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
CV Raman, Nobel Prize 1930, Scattering of light, Crystallography. Which Bose (Basu, same thing)? Jagdish Chandra Basu was into electricity, experimented with radio waves before Maconi, only lost his interest thereafter. Proved vegetation feels pain (well, the exact finding may be described better, but ..).Satyendra Nath Bose wrote to Einstein and their collaboration resulted in the Boson theory. Meghnada Saha (astrophysicist who developed Saha Ionization Equation, used to describe chemical and physical conditions in stars - Wikipedia). Subbarao (discovered function of Adenosine Triphosphate, Tetracycline, Folic Acid, Methotrexate, Diethyle Carbamazine for Filariasis - Wikipedia), and the last, Srinivasa Ramanujan, the most gifted of all, Mathematician, died at the young age of 33. He was one of the youngest members of the Royal Society.

"Though he had almost no formal training in pure mathematics, he made substantial contributions to mathematical analysis, number theory, infinite series, and continued fractions, including solutions to mathematical problems then considered unsolvable. What he had to show them was too novel, too unfamiliar, and additionally presented in unusual ways; they could not be bothered. Seeking mathematicians who could better understand his work, in 1913 he began a postal partnership with the English mathematician G. H. Hardy at the University of Cambridge, England. Recognizing Ramanujan's work as extraordinary, Hardy arranged for him to travel to Cambridge. In his notes, Hardy commented that Ramanujan had produced groundbreaking new theorems, including some that "defeated me completely; I had never seen anything in the least like them before", and some recently proven but highly advanced results.

During his short life, Ramanujan independently compiled nearly 3,900 results (mostly identities and equations). Many were completely novel; his original and highly unconventional results, such as the Ramanujan prime, the Ramanujan theta function, partition formulae and mock theta functions, have opened entire new areas of work and inspired a vast amount of further research. Nearly all his claims have now been proven correct. The Ramanujan Journal, a scientific journal, was established to publish work in all areas of mathematics influenced by Ramanujan, and his notebooks - containing summaries of his published and unpublished results - have been analyzed and studied for decades since his death as a source of new mathematical ideas. As late as 2011 and again in 2012, researchers continued to discover that mere comments in his writings about "simple properties" and "similar outputs" for certain findings were themselves profound and subtle number theory results that remained unsuspected until nearly a century after his death."
Srinivasa Ramanujan - Wikipedia

220px-Srinivasa_Ramanujan_-_OPC_-_1.jpg
Srinivasa Ramanujan (1887 – 1920)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top