U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 07-24-2010, 01:44 PM
 
5,498 posts, read 4,406,623 times
Reputation: 1802

Advertisements

This guys rails against Relativity and Quantum Mechanics while being quite entertaining and informative - interesting.

His web page index

and some sample videos:


YouTube - Einstein's Idiots 1: What's the point?


YouTube - Einstein's Idiots 8: The H-Atom
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-24-2010, 04:34 PM
 
Location: OUTTA SIGHT!
3,023 posts, read 2,750,113 times
Reputation: 1899
Shiloh1... quit posting your own YouTube videos!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2010, 05:10 PM
 
Location: Westwood, MA
3,478 posts, read 4,364,237 times
Reputation: 4482
Why exactly do QM and Relativity need to be railed against?

If he's going to make up his own explanations for something and then shoot holes in his own made-up explanations, he can disprove just about anything. Those pictures of gold atom collisions, for instance, don't claim to be of the individual protons and neutrons of the initial gold atoms, but of other particles created from the extreme center-of-mass energy of the colliding particles.

Disproving years of experimentally verified physics simply by not understanding it doesn't count for much.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2010, 02:42 AM
 
5,498 posts, read 4,406,623 times
Reputation: 1802
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom View Post
Why exactly do QM and Relativity need to be railed against?

If he's going to make up his own explanations for something and then shoot holes in his own made-up explanations, he can disprove just about anything. Those pictures of gold atom collisions, for instance, don't claim to be of the individual protons and neutrons of the initial gold atoms, but of other particles created from the extreme center-of-mass energy of the colliding particles.

Disproving years of experimentally verified physics simply by not understanding it doesn't count for much.
Is that a rhetorical question? Because if you are asking me - I am not the one railing - I just thought his approach was funny and quit entertaining and informative.

Regarding the gold atom collision picture - I think he answers your point begining at 8:10 of the video. They are not traces of particles created by the collision. In the previous video (#7) I think he talks about the elctromagnetic 'ropes' that converge on each atom. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q9Ie...eature=related

FWIIW - I did not say I believed any of what he was saying - just found it intreging
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2010, 05:26 AM
 
Location: Westwood, MA
3,478 posts, read 4,364,237 times
Reputation: 4482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shiloh1 View Post
Is that a rhetorical question? Because if you are asking me - I am not the one railing - I just thought his approach was funny and quit entertaining and informative.

Regarding the gold atom collision picture - I think he answers your point begining at 8:10 of the video. They are not traces of particles created by the collision. In the previous video (#7) I think he talks about the elctromagnetic 'ropes' that converge on each atom.

FWIIW - I did not say I believed any of what he was saying - just found it intreging
It's not entirely rhetorical, as he's taken the time to make the video, you've taken the time to find and post the video, and then I took the time to watch it. I guess the question for you is "why did you find this challenging?" There are certainly areas of physics that are still being developed and are without lots of experimental evidence, but QM and SR are well established and don't have any major experimental inconsistencies.

As for him answering my point, he does not at any time address it. Ordinary scientists claim the picture comes from the subatomic particles created from the energy of two gold atoms colliding.

He refutes this by saying, "If what you are staring at is the total number of particles that you can detect from such a collision we should see no more than 1400 particles", which is not what particle physicists claim. They understand that many secondary particles and antiparticles are created in the collision, and certainly don't expect to see any unbound quarks. The total number of particles is not conserved according to accepted theory, yet he claims that they are in order to show the theory is wrong.

An analogy to his line of arguments would be someone arguing against evolution by saying, "Evolutionists believe that at some point a monkey gave birth to a human, so since this clearly cannot happen evolution must be wrong."

Even if there were a need for a better explanation of the RHIC experiments, his description is flawed. The RHIC pictures looks like lots of threads, but he clearly has no idea how that picture was generated, doesn't describe why the threads interact with the detector but not anything else, and doesn't explain why some of the tracks are curved.

The only reason I post anything is so that someone who doesn't yet understand the basics of QM and SR looks at these videos and believes this guy, simply because it's a bit easier to understand than science that's been experimentally verified.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2010, 02:42 AM
 
5,498 posts, read 4,406,623 times
Reputation: 1802
This guy just keeps gettin better. This one is so funny - LOL.


YouTube - Einstein's Idiots 19: Stephen Crothers: Why Black Holes Don't Exist
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top