Quote# 28277

"We already know that E=mc2 is wrong because it contradicts Newton's law of gravity. E=mc2 says nothing is faster than the speed of light....yet as we know, this is not correct. Gravity is instantaneous, thus faster than the speed of light. If the earth were to move, for example, the moon would somehow "know" it and move right along with it. Same with the sun...if the sun were to move, the planets would follow the sun around, all without ropes.

Scientists have long known that Einstein's theory contradicted Newton's law of gravity, but it's just one of those things they try to keep hush about and sweep under the carpet like it doesn't exist.

So if E=mc2 is wrong, which it is, then we can pretty much be assured that astronomers and cosmologists are not to be trusted because they simply do not know what they're talking about."

supersport, Carm 103 Comments [8/17/2007 11:38:46 PM]
Fundie Index: 17
Submitted By: Aagcobb

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 3 4 5 | bottom


Um... no.

Let's take the so-oft-heard-of apple. If it falls from the tree, is it instantly on the ground? No. What made it fall? Gravity. Why would you say gravity is instantaneous if it doesn't cause things to fall instantly?

8/17/2007 11:44:01 PM


What's this? New, better information that could replace and contradict the old? LALALALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA

Leave the physics to those smart enough to comprehend it. I seriously doubt supersport can do the rudimentary calculus necessary to explain basic gravitational acceleration.

8/17/2007 11:47:39 PM

Jesus was a homosexual

do you even know what the fuck you're talking about? How is gravity instantaneous?

If I push you off a cliff, do you instantly reach the ground? No. You fall down w/an acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2

8/17/2007 11:49:46 PM


Yes, that's the way science works, new and better theories replace the old theories.

That is why science is a far better way of knowing what's true then religion, because it corrects it's own mistakes.

8/17/2007 11:51:14 PM


I wonder how fast supersport was falling because of gravity when his parents dropped him on his head as a baby? Surely no one could achieve this level of stupid naturally.

8/17/2007 11:52:15 PM


Newton's "Law" was no such thing. Law was just an old term for a theory. Eintein's theories merely extended and fleshed out the physics to reflect real observations (not to disrespect the marvellous nature of Einstein's work).

Action at a distance (such as gravity) is easily explained if you envisage space as 3-dimensional and not just 2D. The presence of a large body warps the space-time fabric and causes an indentation in the toplology that other bodies fall into. Imagine a sheet of rubber with a cannon-ball at the centre. If your were to put another object on the sheet then it will be instantaneously affected by the warped nature of the sheet. Depending on how the smaller object is introduced, it will roll directly torwards to centre, or approach in a spiral motion.

8/18/2007 12:27:43 AM


Oh yes, I've been told by somebody that knows more physics then I do that the issue isn't whether or not things fall instantly but whether gravity "travels" instantly.

As it happens, gravity travels at lightspeed. So if the sun disappeared right now we'd keep moving in our orbit for 8 minutes before flying off in a straight line.

8/18/2007 12:28:27 AM


First of all...FUCKING WHAT?!?

Secondly...someone PLEASE call Dr. Cox on this one. Nevermind, I'll do it.


8/18/2007 12:31:11 AM


Holy fuck, gravity is a force created by mass and speed. Of course E=MC2 is correct, if it wasn't the atomic bomb would never have worked.

8/18/2007 12:33:22 AM


Supersport, did you know that you can eliminate your need to eat solid foods by staring straight into the Sun for just a few seconds a day? Really, just start at ten seconds and work your way up from there. Just don't stand in the grass, it drains the energy.

(I'm hoping supersport actually reads this.)

8/18/2007 12:43:12 AM


As it happens, gravity travels at lightspeed. So if the sun disappeared right now we'd keep moving in our orbit for 8 minutes before flying off in a straight line.

Is that actually correct? Would it be more accurate to say that the topology of space-time is propagated at the maximum speed of the medium (which may be light-speed) but the actions are still instant?

8/18/2007 12:58:30 AM


How is gravity instantaneous? Gravity is a constant in terms of acceleration, means that it's finite. Einstein's equation does no directly relate to acceleration.

E=mc^2 has almost nothing to do with F=ma.

Am I missing something here?

8/18/2007 12:59:20 AM

Old Viking

... astronomers and cosmologists ... simply do not know what they are talking about.

Don't you hate it when that happens?

8/18/2007 1:08:29 AM



"...Gravity is a constant in terms of acceleration, means that it's finite..."

No, gravity varies with mass and distance. Its effect is only an average of 9.8m/s/s at a putative displacement from the gravity-well's epicentre on (in) earth. Even within our atmosphere it reaches a value below that exceleration rate. Not that it would help you much if you were falling :-)

8/18/2007 1:30:51 AM


Andrew: Oops... I stand corrected.

It's been a while since I took physics.

8/18/2007 1:33:13 AM


raaarrrgh! Edit link no worky.

"Acceleration" is what I should have typed, although exceleration has a certain ring to it (that supersport will never appreciate).

8/18/2007 1:34:16 AM


You fail Philosophy of Science 101.

8/18/2007 2:13:40 AM


I believe the physicists who use those theories in their daily work are somewhat more qualified to to make these sort of statements than you.

Hell, even Newtown probably knew more of the world than you.

Yet, how would your statement, if true, make the bible more right?

8/18/2007 2:57:24 AM


OK, here's a question.

With the preponderance of evidence for instantaneous gravity of which you and your team of peers (whom I assume are the "we" to which you refer, since literally no one else in the universe supports this moronic claim) are obviously in possession, why isn't any of it presented anywhere in that inane post?

Newtonian physics are good enough for the small and the slow, supersport, but the fact is at relativistic speeds, they fall to pieces and a new theory is required. Shaking your head and saying "nuh-uh" - or even better, proposing a global scientific conspiracy - is hardly any way to cope with such an obvious discrepancy in the data.

8/18/2007 3:08:38 AM


I thought for a moment Carico had written this, but then I noticed that it was supersport, which explains the confusion, as he is almost (not quite, but almost) as stupid fucked-up crazy as Carico.

8/18/2007 4:27:38 AM


Gravity is instantaneous, thus faster than the speed of light. If the earth were to move, for example, the moon would somehow "know" it and move right along with it.

If it weren't Supersport, there would be absolutely no doubt that this would be trolling. What he has described, apparently unwittingly, is almost precisely the classic thought experiment to describe the gravitational effects of relativity, and his answer is just a huge heaping pile of wrong. If the sun were to spontaneously disappear, the orbiting planets would continue to move in the same orbit for a brief period, specifically as long as it takes for the gravity wave to propagate outward from the site of the sun's disappearance, before then moving off in straight lines tangent to their original orbits.

Einstein does not contradict Newton; Newton approximates Einstein as long as the speeds of the described system are vastly lower than C, and the relativistic and newtonian laws of motion become identical as those speeds tend towards zero. It's called the Correspondence Principle, and any decent textbook on relativity will almost certainly emphasise it in the very first chapter or so.

Conclusion: Supersport is continuing admirably in his intensive campaign of expounding on things he doesn't know a goddamn thing about.

8/18/2007 4:28:06 AM


I'm writing this live from the grave of Albert Einstein, and... yes, I can just hear a sound... I do believe it is the sound that would be made if a corpse were to spin in its grave.

So, folks, Einstein is spinning in his grave. Back to you, other commentators.

8/18/2007 4:31:22 AM


Oh how i love people not understand science.

E=mc2 means nothing more than: Energy equals Mass times the speed of light squared. This is a formula by which energy and matter can be transmuted, it says nothing about gravity. With this it can be calculated what the amount of energy is when converting an amount of mass to pure energy, or create matter out of energy.
Where as gravity is nothing more than the pull that any object has to another object.

I have no idea how you have come to your conclusion, since it absolutely makes no sense.

8/18/2007 4:32:32 AM


This is a joke right?

8/18/2007 5:20:42 AM


E=mc^2 has nothing to do with saying that nothing is faster than the speed of light.

The formula you are thinking of is t1 = t0/sqrt(1 - (v^2)/(c^2))

When v is greater than c, v^2 over c^2 will then be greater than 1 so 1 minus v^2 over c^2 will be less than 0. You cannot take a aquare root of less than 0 without using imaginary numbers. if v is c you end up with t1=t0/0 which is a divide by zero which effectively gives you infinity.

That's all kinda beside the point, since Newton doesn't prove it wrong; it proves Newton wrong, though Newtonian physics still gives a very accurate estimate at significantly less than the speed of light.

8/18/2007 6:05:20 AM

1 2 3 4 5 | top: comments page