5 Times (At Least) Einstein Was Wrong

[rangerrebew]

5 Times (At Least) Einstein Was Wrong
By Bill Andrews | July 11, 2018 5:00 pm
 

The past few weeks have featured a few stories about how Albert Einstein’s theories, or the ideas underpinning them, have all been confirmed to a new degree of accuracy. That’s usually the case: Scientists try to disprove Einstein, and Einstein always wins.

But that’s not to say the man was infallible. He was human, just like the rest of us, and did make some mistakes. Here’s a few of them.

1) The cosmological constant

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2018/07/11/times-einstein-was-wrong-including-marrying-his-cousin/#.W9sKJOJReUH

[Absalom]

5 Times (At Least) Einstein Was Wrong
By Bill Andrews | July 11, 2018 5:00 pm
 

The past few weeks have featured a few stories about how Albert Einstein’s theories, or the ideas underpinning them, have all been confirmed to a new degree of accuracy. That’s usually the case: Scientists try to disprove Einstein, and Einstein always wins.

But that’s not to say the man was infallible. He was human, just like the rest of us, and did make some mistakes. Here’s a few of them.

1) The cosmological constant

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2018/07/11/times-einstein-was-wrong-including-marrying-his-cousin/#.W9sKJOJReUH

----------------------------
A reflection.
Copernicus, Galileo, Newton; to name a few, 
created Laws which advanced Mankind.
Darwin and Einstein created Theories to be proven.

[Sanguine]

Meh.  A sort of nothing story.  You consider all sorts of things and then discard them when the evidence doesn't back them up.  That's just how it works.  He thought of a whole lot of things that no one else thought of.  Some of them were bound to be disprovable.

[Sanguine]

----------------------------
A reflection.
Copernicus, Galileo, Newton; to name a few, 
created Laws which advanced Mankind.
Darwin and Einstein created Theories to be proven.

No, sir.  You misunderstand the meaning of scientific theory and scientific law.

[Absalom]

No, sir.  You misunderstand the meaning of scientific theory and scientific law.

---------------------------------------
I misunderstood absolutely nothing.
A scientific Law is a statement of fact that a specific phenomenon
of nature will always occur, if and when certain conditions are present.
A scientific Theory is a reasonable aggregation of ideas intended to
explain why a phenomenon of nature exists or occurs.

[Sanguine]

---------------------------------------
I misunderstood absolutely nothing.
A scientific Law is a statement of fact that a specific phenomenon
of nature will always occur, if and when certain conditions are present.
A scientific Theory is a reasonable aggregation of ideas intended to
explain why a phenomenon of nature exists or occurs.

This may help:

a scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world. A scientific law is simply an observation of the phenomenon that the theory attempts to explain. For example, suppose that you were lying under an apple tree and observed an apple fall from a branch to the ground. The observation of this phenomena can be called the law of gravity. The law of gravity states that every time you drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. The theory of gravity is the explanation as to why the apple falls to the ground. A law is an observation. A theory is an explanation.

https://medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b

[Absalom]

This may help:

-----------------------------
Thanks but your post was unnecessary as I already explained the distinction to you.

[Sanguine]

-----------------------------
Thanks but your post was unnecessary as I already explained the distinction to you.

 

[Frank Cannon]

There was a 6th time. The time he let Meg Ryan date that dirtbag Tim Robbins......

[DB]

----------------------------
A reflection.
Copernicus, Galileo, Newton; to name a few, 
created Laws which advanced Mankind.
Darwin and Einstein created Theories to be proven.

I guess you forgot about GPS.

[Joe Wooten]

----------------------------
A reflection.
Copernicus, Galileo, Newton; to name a few, 
created Laws which advanced Mankind.
Darwin and Einstein created Theories to be proven.

What remains to be proven in both general and special relativity?

Observation has confirmed most of those theories, nuclear power plants and weapons validate them by being predictable/controllable enough to engineer them. Do you have the math to be able to understand Einstein's theories? If you do, then you ought to know that you can derive Newton's "laws" (actually theories) from general relativity. Copernicus and Galileo did not formulate any scientific "laws". Johannes Kepler did, and Newton built off that too.

Darwin did not have the math that Einstein did to describe his theory. By slamming him, you revealed to me your scientific ignorance.

[Victoria33]

@rangerrebew
@CatherineofAragon

Albert Einstein and I agreed on an important matter.  He had a number of suits, all alike, ties all alike, socks all alike, shoes all alike, coats all alike.  That way, no matter what he chose, it all matched and he didn't have to think about it.

I did/do the same.  Pants, skirts, and tops can be mixed up but they match in some way that makes them appear an organized, thought out, matched outfit.  Going to work every day was easier if clothes matched so that part was faster.  Shoes match in some way.  I have several coats to make a choice which to wear based on weather.  That is the only one where an actual choice was/is different.

[thackney]

----------------------------
A reflection.
Copernicus, Galileo, Newton; to name a few, 
created Laws which advanced Mankind.
Darwin and Einstein created Theories to be proven.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/video/how-your-gps-uses-general-relativity/

https://www.space.com/41020-putting-relativity-to-the-test.html

[Absalom]

What remains to be proven in both general and special relativity?

Observation has confirmed most of those theories, nuclear power plants and weapons validate them by being predictable/controllable enough to engineer them. Do you have the math to be able to understand Einstein's theories? If you do, then you ought to know that you can derive Newton's "laws" (actually theories) from general relativity. Copernicus and Galileo did not formulate any scientific "laws". Johannes Kepler did, and Newton built off that too.

Darwin did not have the math that Einstein did to describe his theory. By slamming him, you revealed to me your scientific ignorance.

------------------------------------
So predictable!
The Darwin and Einstein apologist club rationalize their opinions by disparaging
original minds of the past and then making excuses for the intellectual
shortcomings of these two, because "they didn't have this or that." How terribly sad.
Suggest the apologist fan club consult a proctologist at least semi-annually and
dispense w/the science pretensions. Advice from an engineer!!!

[DB]

------------------------------------
So predictable!
The Darwin and Einstein apologist club rationalize their opinions by disparaging
original minds of the past and then making excuses for the intellectual
shortcomings of these two, because "they didn't have this or that." How terribly sad.
Suggest the apologist fan club consult a proctologist at least semi-annually and
dispense w/the intellectual pretensions!

The irony of your post is pretty funny...

[Sanguine]

------------------------------------
So predictable!
The Darwin and Einstein apologist club rationalize their opinions by disparaging
original minds of the past and then making excuses for the intellectual
shortcomings of these two, because "they didn't have this or that." How terribly sad.
Suggest the apologist fan club consult a proctologist at least semi-annually and
dispense w/the intellectual pretensions!

This is meaningless gibberish.

[Silver Pines]

@rangerrebew
@CatherineofAragon

Albert Einstein and I agreed on an important matter.  He had a number of suits, all alike, ties all alike, socks all alike, shoes all alike, coats all alike.  That way, no matter what he chose, it all matched and he didn't have to think about it.

I did/do the same.  Pants, skirts, and tops can be mixed up but they match in some way that makes them appear an organized, thought out, matched outfit.  Going to work every day was easier if clothes matched so that part was faster.  Shoes match in some way.  I have several coats to make a choice which to wear based on weather.  That is the only one where an actual choice was/is different.

@Victoria33

That’s the best way to build a wardrobe.  Fashion experts say that’s how it should be done.

I don’t know where to buy clothes anymore...my sister-in-law and I were talking about it yesterday.  She’s the same.  Tha quality of clothing has really cratered.  I used to find nice items at Kohl’s, for instance, but now everything is cheap and tissue-thin.  It’s like that at so many places.

[Joe Wooten]

------------------------------------
So predictable!
The Darwin and Einstein apologist club rationalize their opinions by disparaging
original minds of the past and then making excuses for the intellectual
shortcomings of these two, because "they didn't have this or that." How terribly sad.
Suggest the apologist fan club consult a proctologist at least semi-annually and
dispense w/the science pretensions. Advice from an engineer!!!

I am an engineer, a moderately successful one. BSME 1979 UT Austin.........

[Idaho_Cowboy]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/video/how-your-gps-uses-general-relativity/

https://www.space.com/41020-putting-relativity-to-the-test.html

Thanks man. I'd heard that general relativity was required for satellites, but it never made sense. I always assumed basic trig was all you needed.

For anyone looking for a more understandable explanation of relativity it's history, and it's role in quantum computing I highly recommend Extra Credit's series on the subject:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iol5936dZho

[Silver Pines]

-----------------------------
Thanks but your post was unnecessary as I already explained the distinction to you.

Lmao