Information icon.svg

Campaigning for the RationalMedia Foundation 2019 board of trustees election has begun. Ask questions, read slogans, and (un)endorse candidates!

Information icon.svg

RationalWiki has reached 7,000 articles!

Debate:How Einstein is WRONG. And physics needs to be rewritten

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by Blaine.


Proposition[edit]

Since Einstein has been proven wrong, and a lot of physics is based on his relativity theory, I propose that most physics is wrong. We have to use other theories to prove our own, well if what we staryed with was wrong, then they're all wrong. Even Newton's so called laws can be disputed as wrong and everything starts with that. We see sonething that doesn't quite look right, so we make a new theory to fit in the model that we created. When I say hey! Wake up! We're wrong about everything we try to make so much sense of. We don't know shit about our universe until we are true to ourselves and wipe the blackboard clean and start from scratch. I'd like to hear what anybody else has on the subject. Thanks for reading. — Unsigned, by: Willmontnc / talk / contribs

Or, we could do the smart thing, look at HOW the existing theories were wrong, and adjust anything that needs adjusting. Which, as far as I know, is what scientists worldwide actually do. 68.200.26.93 (talk)

I sorta think you need to start off by demonstrating that the Theory of Relativity has been shown to be "wrong". It's not fully compatible with quantum mechanics - but we've know this for a long time. That's why scientists would like a Theory of Everything.
So can you link to something which shows the Theory of Relativity being falsified?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Given that physics is rewritten bit by bit all the time for new discoveries... um, ok. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:46, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. That's why the poster should be talking about the "Theory of Relativity" and not "Einstein".--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The starting premises for this whole debate are incoherent and flawed. Too bad, because it renders any actual debating undoable. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
The title is "how einstein is wrong". The content is "Eintstein is wrong, now that means erase everything". We never got the how. Give me a sad. More coherence could have led to some interesting (if hypothetical) questions. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:51, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Who in particular says Einstein is wrong, and why do they say it?

Theories which are spelt [1] and writ [2] proper and which do not use 'words which are considered objectionable in some contexts' are likely to be given more credence. Also, 'thesis, antithesis, synthesis/improved thesis' applies to science as well as to Marx. And sometimes 'the thesis was correct/the best available fit #based upon the material and theories available at the time# (habitable Venus, or 'the sun is made of burning coal so we have a future of only a few thousand years'). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah! Well that makes everything clear!--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Translation: Something someting pseudolaw, something something Hegel, something something Marx, something something pseudoscience. To quote Bob, "Well that makes everything clear!". Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Zone in which 82.44.143.26 will demonstrate the falsity of Einstein's theory/theories[edit]

We wait. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 20:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Wordplay - the original proposition being mis-spelt and using an 'objectionable word' which both detract from whatever thesis is being proposed; 'the person who starts the idea-snowball rolling' may, for various reasons, get things seen as incorrect by those refining or disproving the thesis, and a couple of examples of where 'lack of information led to wrong conclusions.' Just because those in the past got some aspects wrong - because they had insufficient information or did not have the relevant methodologies does not mean that they are wrong in everything. It is only when they go for malicious mispresentation, have fatal flaws in their arguments, are faking or distorting the material and similar that 'X was wrong on y, so they are wrong on everything' is valid. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

FCP - from what I can see 'Einstein is considered to be mostly correct apart from the "fudge figure" - and now we have better means of measuring the universe so can come up with new ways of aligning wonderful theories with observed fact without having to change either.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Evidence and/or proof that are likely to be presented[edit]

Two tumbleweeds rolling across the screen, from left to right.

--JorisEnter (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2016 (UTC)