taog

"but to say that it is invalid to state that E=mc^2 is not a model shows a lack of understanding on your part"

Now, do you mean invalid to state that it is a model? Or, invalid to state that it isn't a model?

Either way, if you are saying that I said that E=mc^2 isn't a model, you show more ignorance than myself, and a lack of understanding is shown on your part.

If you are saying that it isn't a model, than you show more ignorance, aswell, and a great deal of a lack of understanding on your part.

I didn't state that it isn't a model, in fact, I stated that it is a model.

Sure, I may have been out of line when I said that I don't see that guy explaining anything valid on here, but I do know what I'm talking about, probably moreso than yourself, when it comes to relativity. I give myself a lot of pride in the fact that I can understand a lot more about the physical world than most people. When someone comes along and simply states that everything is just theory and all of these theories could be invalid, then goes on to state that they think they are, I take it as a personal insult to my intelligence, and I take it as that person insulting the many scientists who have devoted years of study on the subject. If you want to say it's invalid, show me why. Don't just say that you think it's invalid.

I do not know much about quantum mechanics, and if you do, post your thoughts. I would love to learn about the subject, so back everything up about the differences between quantum mechanics and relativity.

I do know this though.

Quantum mechanics is the study of the small, whereas relativity is the study of the large. They are on opposite sides of the spectrum, so it's no surprise that they don't fully fit together. A unified theory is what we need to find between the two to fully understand how everything truely works. So, to just say that relativity doesn't hold up in the realm of quantum mechanics could be wrong. Aspects of it don't, but it's a two sided situation. A lot of aspects of relativity, including the ones I had stated, have been proven in our physical world, which would neglect your comment about models being made for perfect environments.

I will admit that the theories and models I have posted on here may be wrong, but they are proven moreso than not, so to say that they are just theories that might not work is lazy. Scientists have given their entire lives to test and model these theories to best fit our physical world, and therefore, I hold their thoughts and findings on a very high platter. Scientists will go and disprove, or prove, a lot in relation to relativity, but like I have stated, many of the topics at hand have been proven to work in our current situation.

Since newtonian physics was touched upon here, we'll take a look at that for an example.

Many things that you learn in physics relate to Newton's laws. Why do we learn them even though there have been further proofs to explain things a lot better and more accurately (relativity)? Well, because Newton's laws still work for small general cases. They don't work in every situation, but they are still valid a lot of the time.

It's the same as relativity. It doesn't work correctly with quantum mechanics, but it's still valid. A lot of aspects have been tested and proven to work in our physical world. Therefore, we have more pros for these aspects being valid than not. It's likely that the models will need to be reshaped, but the general idea still holds, and I believe it will hold for the rest of human existance.

Can all of this change? Yes. At a great degree where we realize that E=mc^2 is no longer a formula that does us any good? It's more likely that this dude actually did go back in time.

Either way, this topic was about a guy who said he went back in time. Obviously his people would have been able to figure out the unanswered questions to the theories we are talking about, or they would have come up with something so new that has never been thought of before. It's possible, but if it happened, he would have told us.

He was the one who said that he had this crazy time machine that was able to bend light 60 degrees. That relates to the way things work in todays physics, so why not argue todays physics in this thread?

Why can't you argue about how things work physically in relativity with someone who supposedly broke the now accepted boundries that scientists believe, with using ideas based on todays boundries and physics? He should be able to answer them, shouldn't he? Or, we should be able to get someone to go and figure out what is going on exactly.

This argument has gone on a 360 degree turn. It has turned into a battle of who holds science on a higher platter, and who has more faith in science. The argument started off with, 'who thinks this guy is a fake'. I have stated why I think he is a fake, and everything i stated relates to him, physically.

To me, physics is something that people have worked on for a very long time and many people have devoted their lives to trying to figure out how the universe works around us. To say that it is probably wrong is ignorant. You're basically saying that all these people with a great amount of intelligence are probably wrong. Doesn't it seem like there's a bit of ignorance in that?