# Thread: Albert Einstein maybe wrong!

1. ## Albert Einstein maybe wrong!

Thought you might find this interesting

http://www.hscsdiscoverypage.com/

All what we know maybe just wrong.
Time to go back to school again

2. 1 more day.

all laws are wrong propably. to hard to make correct laws

3. damnit, I knew c = (E/m)^0.5!

Stefan

4. Just who is this H.S. Chandrashekar? other than the titles on the website?

E-MC squared is just theory, always has been.
Do you know what the formulae actually means?

The 'Big Bang' theory is just that, theory

Albert Eienstein was a genius, proven beyond doubt.

Who is this guy Chandrashekar?..can he prove anything?.. or just another bag of hot air.

Any one of you could get a room full of diplomas.. all fake of course, but you could give some naive person a real snow-job if you wanted to.

Look at Adolph Hitler...he B/Sed millions, and they loved it.

5. my post was a joke and I didn't even look at the link...

Albert Eienstein was a genius, proven beyond doubt.
agreed.

Stefan

6. looks like some crackpot to me.

7. i say crackpot

one thing i have never understood was why it's E = mc^2 instead of E = (1/2)mc^2
m is mass and c is a constant velocity. technically speaking E = mc^2 is a kinetic energy formula then... but you recall, the kinetic energy formula is E = (1/2)mv^2. the 1/2 comes from integrating v into mv (momentum). i don't know where Einstein got his formula from

8. Crackpot or not, laws of physics are being broken daily. In the following article you'll see how even negative space possibly has more substance then we give it credit for, and how 'light speed' is limited by it.

In a complete vacuum, light moves 186,000 miles per second (the basis for the light year). In a chamber of cesium vapor, light moves a whopping 57,660,000 miles per second.

That breaks several laws of physics, and as I said, it also defines that negative space is still 'space' (Eg. it impedes lights, or even has a mass of sorts, hard to explain) so who knows, perhaps this Prof. isn't so much a kuuk as you think.

For more about the Cesium Chamber lightspeed expirement, it can be found over at CNN's space channel

9. So is Einstein the father of atomics? Without his knowledge, we will not have atomic bombs in the first place. Right? He's a bit strange but his brain is damned powerful.

An old theory can be challenged by other people but the challenge can never be recognized. Because everyone recognizes E=MC square.

10. Crackpot or not that we deside.

DocEvi1 was right!!

11. nobody has had a chance to read it yet. the website says on May 25 between 10:30 and 11:30 AM the story will be up. right now it's only 9:12 AM. the story won't be online for another hour and a bit.

all i see is this:

Hearty Welcome to this amazing web page of Mr. H.S. Chandrashekar

BREAKING NEWS

I am going to give to this world a new theory with two new universal laws through this webpage on 25.5.2003 between 10.30 and 11.30 a.m

The two new universal laws are going to contradict Newton's universal law of gravitational attraction and the great equation of Albert Einstein , E= mc2 and also they are going to contradict the big bang theory.

WATCH THE WONDER ON THIS WEB PAGE

H.S. CHANDRASHEKAR
LECTURER
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
HASSAN-573201
KARNATAKA
INDIA
RES PHONE:08172-245508
DEPARTMENT:08172-245319
chandrashekarhs2003@yahoo.com

look on the source of that page and you won't find 1 link to another page (search for href).

his status isn't very good now that i look at it. he teaches at a college, not a university (or even institute of technology). he doesn't have a Ph.D. either.

12. Strange I can click on the linlks to!

http://www.hscsdiscoverypage.com/hscs_1.htm

13. here is a picture of what i see. pictures say more than words ever can

http://edmonton-elite.cjb.net/junk/crackpot.png

14. hey, crackpot made a slip up!

Nowhere in the universe light rays are attracted and absorbed due to intense gravitational field, because, no attractive force is present in this universe.
light actually IS bent towards black holes; which he explains here:

But, in the universe, the fuel of any star can never exhaust. They are with infinite, everlasting life. Not even a decrease of fuel can occur in the star. Every star is continuously recharged with energy and mass due to the hitting by streams of C.S. particles which are coming from the black mass and that are absorbed by the stars.
that is not true either. stars (including the sun) are powered by hydrogen fusion. when hydrogen and any other easily fused atoms are depleated, the star has run out of fuel.

then he tries to explain that with this paragraph, not the bold underlined words

The C.S. particles which hit the stars and which are absorbed by the stars will continuously supply the energy and mass to the stars and the C.S. particles are processed in the stars and converted into different particles like light particles (photons), heat particles etc.
heat is not a particle, it doesn't have a mass like a coffee mug and it doesn't even have a momentum like light does.

his general arguments are fairly stupid. his explanation of how gravity works is sort of dumb and doesn't really explain why some things have gain more energy towards other objects than others. and it doesn't explain why gravity has a specific direction to it. his dumb *** little explanation says that these waves or energy that push things together (like gravity) are in all directions. if that is true, why can different things attract each other in a precise direction?

15. Should we be thankful to Einstein's atomic theory because it brings us nuclear power?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•