frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Can you prove Einstein wrong?

Debate Information

What is your bid to prove Einstine wrong once and for all.
  1. Live Poll

    What is your bid?

    1 vote
    1. Over $100.00
      100.00%
    2. Under $100.00
        0.00%
«134



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • Einstiens Thoery of Relativity can be Scientificly proven wrong for under $100.00 using 


    Probabilistic proof 

    &

    Constructive Proof


  • jackjack 135 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    What is your bid to prove Einstine wrong once and for all.
    Hello John:

    Proof?  Not yet..  But smart people are working on it.  I can only offer supposition.

    Einstein says nothing can go faster than 186,000 miles a second..  But, that was over 100 years ago, long before inflation was a thing..  But, inflation goes and/or went faster than that.  A scientist named Guth won a Nobel Prize for proving it.  Plus, when it was created, the speed of the universe itself, was wayyyyy faster than the speed of light.  We gotta learn how that happened. 

    If we wanna examine the universe, and we do, we'll have to go faster than the speed of light, a veritable snails pace.

    I lose $100, right?  Ok, I'll send you a check.

    excon

  • @jack

    Yes, there is Constructive mathematics proof right now the theory of General Relativity and Newtons Law of Gravity are wrong. 

    To simplify the whole process for everyone including you Jack there is a list of ratio’s to a circles circumference. In this list the value of Pi does not exist on precise ratio values are located in this list. There is then a second list of less precise valies we call approximation Pi by fact a part of that list.

    Due to this mathematical proof established before scientific method is applied there is then a scientific experiment which can be conducted by most all people with a general knowledge of grade school mathematics to confirm the mathematical data. All for under $100.00

  • @jack

    E = Mc^2 when corrected is written E ≈ Mc^2

    There is a List of circumference ratio. There is a list of Circumference approximation. Pi is only in the list of approximation and therefor is not in question of being in the list of ratio.

    I lose $100, right?  Ok, I'll send you a check.
    I do not think you understand I'm not asking for money I am making a firm statement you can conduct a scientific experiment for under $100.00 dollars to prove Einstein wrong.

    Nomenclature
  • Relativity is unquestionably man made.

  • John_C_87 said:
    @jack

    Yes, there is Constructive mathematics proof right now the theory of General Relativity and Newtons Law of Gravity are wrong. 


    Whoa, Newtons law of gravity is wrong? This theory actually proves that what goes up actually stays up and never comes down?

    So, when people who have taken magic mushrooms they are actually not imagining it when they think they think they can fly?

    FYI, there is also a theory about math proving that God exists. None of it held up to scrutiny though. To me this stuff sounds ludicrous.





  • @ZeusAres42

    It doesn't prove ZeusAres42 it is a mathematical calculation that is right or wrong and yes it is wrong. The theorem describes how any point of mass attracts another in the universe.

    It is written this way which is wrong  R : F = G(m1 m2) /R^2 
    Correctly it is written this way  R : F ≈  G(m1 m2) /R^2
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Wow

    This thread is basically a bunch of dumb people who have no idea what they are talking about, bluffing each other that they are really smart and know more than the best scientists who ever lived. 
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2290 Pts   -   edited January 7

    Argument Topic: Wow

    This thread is basically a bunch of dumb people who have no idea what they are talking about, bluffing each other that they are really smart and know more than the best scientists who ever lived. 

    Explain it to us then. You are obviously the expert here that knows what he is talking about. What is it that we don't know exactly? Since you know this subject so well, perhaps you could also explain it in a way that even a 5 year old could understand. Please, I really want you to educate me.




  • @Nomenclature
    This thread is basically a bunch of dumb people who have no idea what they are talking about, bluffing each other that they are really smart and know more than the best scientists who ever lived.
    No as creator I can assure you the thread is about how almsot anyone can prove Einstine is wrong for under $100.00 ....
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42
    Explain it to us then. You are obviously the expert here

    There are no experts here. You seriously believe a physics expert would be spending time arguing with laymen on the internet?

    Honestly.

  • @ZeusAres42
    Allow me please...
    You can be instucted to create two list useing basic math...
    List (A) 
    List (B)
    A scientific method can them be used to confirm the constructive mathmatic poof once and for all Einstine is wrong...
    Correctly it is written this way  R : F ≈  G(m1 m2) /R^2

    What the Constructive proof establishes is relativity is manmade...relativity is not general.....Law of mathematical relation....

    Nomenclature
  • @ZeusAres42
    Explain it to us then. You are obviously the expert here

    There are no experts here. You seriously believe a physics expert would be spending time arguing with laymen on the internet?

    Honestly.


    ZeusAres42 is a welcome participant ...no one need be an expert to contribute to the process of brain storming taking place...I had a productive Covid Quarantine and was able to finish some ongoing work ahead of schedule.


    Nomenclature
  • @ZeusAres42
    Explain it to us then. You are obviously the expert here

    There are no experts here. You seriously believe a physics expert would be spending time arguing with laymen on the internet?

    Honestly.


    I didn't say you were a physics expert. But you obviously have more knowledge and expertise here than the rest of us regarding this subject. Otherwise how else could you conclude we're all du mb and that none us know what we are talking about.

    Pleas explain what it is that we don't know what we are talking about so it looks like we can then start talking in a way that looks like we know what we are talking about. As I said, I would like you teach me please? :)@Nomenclature
    Nomenclaturejack



  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    ZeusAres42 is a welcome participant

    That's fantastic. The problem is that you're writing absolute nonsense and as someone with only a very basic knowledge of physics and math it is perfectly evident to me that you don't understand either. You're literally writing gibberish.

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    I didn't say you were a physics expert.
    Yes you did, right here (sarcasm notwithstanding):-
    Explain it to us then. You are obviously the expert here
    You're attempting to have a conversation about physics. The entire thread is about physics. 
    But you obviously have more knowledge and expertise here than the rest of us regarding this subject
    That's correct, and the irony is that I know very little about physics.
  • @John_C_87

    ZeusAres42 is a welcome participant

    That's fantastic. The problem is that you're writing absolute nonsense and as someone with only a very basic knowledge of physics and math it is perfectly evident to me that you don't understand either. You're literally writing gibberish.


    Takes a special kind of person to say openly they cannot understand a basic idea of math le two list............Thank you for that laugh it is priceless…..


    Nomenclature
  • @Nomenclature
    You're attempting to have a conversation about physics. The entire thread is about physics. 

    No, you make a assumption that Einstein was a physicist and therefore could only ever make a physics mistake to undermine the theory. As it turns out the mistake was in basic mathematics error that destroys theory of General relativity not a calculus issue.


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    Takes a special kind of person to say openly they cannot understand a basic idea of math

    You haven't explained any basic idea of math. You've copied the Newtonian equation for gravity from Wikipedia (incorrectly) and changed the equals symbol to an approximately equals symbol. I'm not sure what exactly is wrong with you.


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 7
    @John_C_87
    No, you make a assumption that Einstein was a physicist

    For your own sake I hope that's sarcasm.

    As it turns out the mistake was in basic mathematics error

    Number one, mathematics is the language of physics. Number two, you haven't shown any evidence that Einstein's math is wrong. Doing so would require a basic knowledge of physics, and since you lack that, you're very probably not going to be swiping the Nobel Prize. Sorry bud.

  • @John_C_87
    No, you make a assumption that Einstein was a physicist

    For your own sake I hope that's sarcasm.

    As it turns out the mistake was in basic mathematics error

    Number one, mathematics is the language of physics. Number two, you haven't shown any evidence that Einstein's math is wrong. Doing so would require a basic knowledge of physics, and since you lack that, you're very probably not going to be swiping the Nobel Prize. Sorry bud.

    E = Mc^2 when corrected is written E ≈ Mc^2


    yes, I did....
    lol wining a Noble Prize does not keep Einstines thoery valid...........
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 7
    @John_C_87
    E = Mc^2 when corrected is written E ≈ Mc^2

    That isn't a correction. That's you substituting the equals symbol for an approximately equals symbol. In plain English, you're claiming that the equation isn't completely accurate, not correcting it. Please don't take offence to this question, but have you ever been diagnosed with any form of mental illness?

  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2290 Pts   -   edited January 7
    @ZeusAres42

    I didn't say you were a physics expert.
    Yes you did, right here (sarcasm notwithstanding):-
    Explain it to us then. You are obviously the expert here
    You're attempting to have a conversation about physics. The entire thread is about physics. 
    But you obviously have more knowledge and expertise here than the rest of us regarding this subject
    That's correct, and the irony is that I know very little about physics.

    This thread is basically a bunch of dumb people who have no idea what they are talking about, bluffing each other that they are really smart and know more than the best scientists who ever lived. 
    Remember this was your first post @Nomenclature. Oh, and what is funny to me is how you unaware of the irony of this post of yours.


    I didn't say you were a physics expert.
    Yes you did, right here (sarcasm notwithstanding):-
    Explain it to us then. You are obviously the expert here

    I must be going blind. I can't see the word "physics" here mentioned here anywhere. Also, please point out where I said anything that implied I think I know more than the smartest people that ever lived because I can't find myself having said or implied this anywhere. But it's clear that you inferred it somehow but the question is how? hmmm.?


    You're attempting to have a conversation about physics. The entire thread is about physics. 
    But you obviously have more knowledge and expertise here than the rest of us regarding this subject
    That's correct, and the irony is that I know very little about physics.

    Then how can you be so sure of yourself that none of us know what we are talking about when you know very little here yourself? And you still haven't explained how this is the case which I keep asking. No examples, no explanations, or anything; just assertions that we're all du-mb and that you know more than the whole of us. hmmm? So, you're just here to tell us how du-mb we are and how much more you know? So you read what each of us has said and then concluded that we all made the same argument which is a dumb one right? Good talk bruh.

    Oh, and the other thing I find amusing as well as low is your continuous use of derision of a guy here that obviously has learning difficulties and that this hasn't dawned on you yet even after about 4 or more years of you being here!

    Oh yeah, and to answer your previous question about physicists arguing with laymen I will answer by saying I have a couple of friends that are bona fide  physicists and I know with 99.9 % certainty that they wouldn't engage in a discussion with the grandiose likes of you (at least not a serious and sober one anyway). No offence btw.


    Anywhere here is a toast to the self-educated gentleman (AKA Nomenclature or NOMNOM)





  • @John_C_87
    E = Mc^2 when corrected is written E ≈ Mc^2

    That isn't a correction. That's you substituting the equals symbol for an approximately equals symbol. In plain English, you're claiming that the equation isn't completely accurate, not correcting it. Please don't take offence to this question, but have you ever been diagnosed with any form of mental illness?


    The equation is not accurate at all.Period. Realisticaly the field equaitoin is where I prove Einstine wrong but we are debating if you can prove him wrong not me. Look t the room title.

    An equation is right, or it is wrong. When a correction takes place the mistake has been eliminated. You are saying a theory lives forever and they do not.  Please Focus... on the work not me...


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42
    I must be going blind. I can't see the word "physics" here mentioned here anywhere

    I don't think the problem is your eyesight. I think it's likely a mental health problem. That's the only explanation I can possibly fathom for why you'd be discussing gravity, Newton's gravitational constant, Einstein's mass/energy equivalent, but then deny that you're talking about physics. 

    "No, your honour, I didn't actually say the word physics, so therefore I was discussing badminton."

    I would truly like to know what is wrong with you mentally.


    ZeusAres42
  • @Nomenclature

    I can possibly fathom for why you'd be discussing gravity, Newton's gravitational constant, Einstein's mass/energy equivalent 

    Yes, you can, I said it clearly they both have Pi and this causes an error. I calculated two lists, one of ratio to a circles circumference therefor I have the ability to correct the errors. You not so much... Again, look at the room title. 


    Nomenclature
  • I'm going to go eat icecream...night

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 7
    @John_C_87

    Yes, you can, I said it clearly they both have Pi

    Roflmao.

    No they don't. Energy is equivalent to mass multiplied by the speed of light in a vacuum, squared. It has nothing to do with pi.

  • @ZeusAres42
    I must be going blind. I can't see the word "physics" here mentioned here anywhere

    I don't think the problem is your eyesight. I think it's likely a mental health problem. That's the only explanation I can possibly fathom for why you'd be discussing gravity, Newton's gravitational constant, Einstein's mass/energy equivalent, but then deny that you're talking about physics. 

    "No, your honour, I didn't actually say the word physics, so therefore I was discussing badminton."

    I would truly like to know what is wrong with you mentally.



    ^^^^^
    NOMNOM thinks because I denied saying he was a physics expert means that I am not having a subject about physics. You heard it here folks. Because someone doesn't mention the word science in his post means he is talking about something else. poor poor NOMNOM. You gotta love him. Cute!






    Nomenclature



  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    I don't think you've quite grasped the concept of debate. It isn't a cartwheel dance where you continuously throw out fallacy after fallacy to try to obfuscate all the mind-bogglingly ridiculous, self-contradictory statements you make. 
    ZeusAres42
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2290 Pts   -   edited January 7

    @ZeusAres42
    I must be going blind. I can't see the word "physics" here mentioned here anywhere

    I don't think the problem is your eyesight. I think it's likely a mental health problem. That's the only explanation I can possibly fathom for why you'd be discussing gravity, Newton's gravitational constant, Einstein's mass/energy equivalent, but then deny that you're talking about physics. 

    "No, your honour, I didn't actually say the word physics, so therefore I was discussing badminton."

    I would truly like to know what is wrong with you mentally.



    ZeusAres42 said:


    ^^^^^
    NOMNOM thinks because I denied saying he was a physics expert means that I am not having a subject about physics. You heard it here folks. Because someone doesn't mention the word science in his post means he is talking about something else. poor poor NOMNOM. You gotta love him. Cute!


    I don't think you've quite grasped the concept of debate. It isn't a cartwheel dance where you continuously throw out fallacy after fallacy to try to obfuscate all the mind-bogglingly ridiculous, self-contradictory statements you make. 



    You do enjoy embarrassing yourself don't you?
    Nomenclature



  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 7
    @ZeusAres42

    NOMNOM thinks because I denied saying he was a physics expert means that I am not having a subject about physics.

    OK, OK, your honour. I WAS talking about physics, but when I replied, "Explain it to us then. You are obviously the expert here", I wasn't saying Nomenclature was an expert in physics. I was saying he was an expert in badminton.

    Is it time for my thorazine yet?

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    You do enjoy embarrassing yourself don't you?

    Yes, that's what's happening buddy. These nice young men are going to take you somewhere safe now. You'll be able to have great conversation with them about physics because one of them is an expert in badminton.

    ZeusAres42
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2290 Pts   -   edited January 7
    @ZeusAres42

    You do enjoy embarrassing yourself don't you?

    Yes, that's what's happening buddy. These nice young men are going to take you somewhere safe now. You'll be able to have great conversation with them about physics because one of them is an expert in badminton.


    I have asked NOMNOM to explain basic physics to me. I have also asked to show me where I said anything that implied I know more that the smartest people that ever lived. My very first post:

    John_C_87 said:
    @jack

    Yes, there is Constructive mathematics proof right now the theory of General Relativity and Newtons Law of Gravity are wrong. 


    Whoa, Newtons law of gravity is wrong? This theory actually proves that what goes up actually stays up and never comes down?

    So, when people who have taken magic mushrooms they are actually not imagining it when they think they think they can fly?

    FYI, there is also a theory about math proving that God exists. None of it held up to scrutiny though. To me this stuff sounds ludicrous.



    His very first quote to all of us:
    This thread is basically a bunch of dumb people who have no idea what they are talking about, bluffing each other that they are really smart and know more than the best scientists who ever lived. 
    @ZeusAres42

    I didn't say you were a physics expert.
    Yes you did, right here (sarcasm notwithstanding):-
    Explain it to us then. You are obviously the expert here
    You're attempting to have a conversation about physics. The entire thread is about physics. 
    But you obviously have more knowledge and expertise here than the rest of us regarding this subject
    That's correct, and the irony is that I know very little about physics.


    @ZeusAres42
    I must be going blind. I can't see the word "physics" here mentioned here anywhere

    I don't think the problem is your eyesight. I think it's likely a mental health problem. That's the only explanation I can possibly fathom for why you'd be discussing gravity, Newton's gravitational constant, Einstein's mass/energy equivalent, but then deny that you're talking about physics. 

    "No, your honour, I didn't actually say the word physics, so therefore I was discussing badminton."

    I would truly like to know what is wrong with you mentally.





    @ZeusAres42

    NOMNOM thinks because I denied saying he was a physics expert means that I am not having a subject about physics.

    OK, OK, your honour. I WAS talking about physics, but when I replied, "Explain it to us then. You are obviously the expert here", I wasn't saying Nomenclature was an expert in physics. I was saying he was an expert in badminton.

    Is it time for my thorazine yet?

    @ZeusAres42

    You do enjoy embarrassing yourself don't you?

    Yes, that's what's happening buddy. These nice young men are going to take you somewhere safe now. You'll be able to have great conversation with them about physics because one of them is an expert in badminton.


    @MayCaesar you're the only guy here on this site that has an actual science background (Apart from happy_killbot and possibly Plaff who are not active any more unfortunately). Perhaps you can tell me what is wrong with my very first post apart from some of it being satire as Nom has failed to do and appears to be interested in telling people how du-mb they are and how smart he is:

    John_C_87 said:
    @jack

    Yes, there is Constructive mathematics proof right now the theory of General Relativity and Newtons Law of Gravity are wrong. 


    Whoa, Newtons law of gravity is wrong? This theory actually proves that what goes up actually stays up and never comes down?

    So, when people who have taken magic mushrooms they are actually not imagining it when they think they think they can fly?

    FYI, there is also a theory about math proving that God exists. None of it held up to scrutiny though. To me this stuff sounds ludicrous.



    Apparently, according to Nom this post of mine means that I am pretending to be smart and think I know more than the smartest people that ever lived such as Isaac Newton. I have asked him how he came to this conclusion but he continued to avoid this question as you can see from above. Perhaps you can answer for him as he clearly can't do it.



  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -  
    What is your bid to prove Einstine wrong once and for all.

    I don't know anyone who went by the name "Einstine"  It doesn't bode well when id-iots like you cannot even spell his name 

    I just bet you just want to babble on about PI with your usual pile of horse cr-p
  • @John_C_87

    Yes, you can, I said it clearly they both have Pi

    Roflmao.

    No they don't. Energy is equivalent to mass multiplied by the speed of light in a vacuum, squared. It has nothing to do with pi.

    Yes, they do you obviously never look at Eintstien field equation. 

    Thanks Dee for the heads up in Einstine............
  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    es, they do you obviously never look at Eintstien field equation. 

    Thanks Dee for the heads up in Einstine............ 

    Wow! So now you've changed from Einstine to  Einststien

    It would be an added bonus if you stopped babbling on about something you know nothing about 
    Nomenclature
  • I don't think you've quite grasped the concept of debate. It isn't a cartwheel dance where you continuously throw out fallacy after fallacy to try to obfuscate all the mind-bogglingly ridiculous, self-contradictory statements you make. 
    No fallacy ...
    Energy does not equal mass constant squared.
    Energy almost equal mass cosntant squared.
    It isn't even a physics mistake as it is over the basic mathmatics of ratio and has nothing to do with the folowing algabra mistake.

    As a physics error made by Einstein and physicists alike, Pi cannot be inserted on both sides of the linear algebra equation there was never a negative equivalent declared by Einstein prior. Keep in mind this also destroys the concept of Space Time as the linear mathmatic function using Pi is the fallacy.

    The price tag......for a scientific method to confirm the data is under $20.00 in common materials most grade schools students can find without charge in grade school. Paper, pencils, scissors, tape, ruler.


    Nomenclature
  • Dee said:
    @John_C_87

    es, they do you obviously never look at Eintstien field equation. 

    Thanks Dee for the heads up in Einstine............ 

    Wow! So now you've changed from Einstine to  Einststien

    It would be an added bonus if you stopped babbling on about something you know nothing about 

    Wow! I changed it from Einstien to Einstine back to Einstien........ Look at the room title Drunk!

    Stop mumbling over you drink....your drool is ruining a good Scotch...

    You can't bid on something you can't do, which is tell the difference between algabra and grade school ratios. 

  • jackjack 135 Pts   -  
    This thread is basically a bunch of dumb people who have no idea what they are talking about,
    Hello Nom:

    And, you're an a**hole.  Always was, and always will be.

    excon
    ZeusAres42
  • jackjack 135 Pts   -  
    John_C_87 said:
    @jack

    To simplify the whole process for everyone including you Jack

    Hello again, John:

    I appreciate your confidence in me.. 

    Du-de! I used to think the reason I didn't understand you was because you were too d*mb.  But, that's not it..  You're too smart..

    excon
  • jack said:
    John_C_87 said:
    @jack

    To simplify the whole process for everyone including you Jack

    Hello again, John:

    I appreciate your confidence in me.. 

    Du-de! I used to think the reason I didn't understand you was because you were too d*mb.  But, that's not it..  You're too smart..

    excon
    Um......Thanks........

    I do retain my United States Constitutional Right to be as dumb as the next guy.........
    All men are created equal by their creator and all...........lol...

    I obsess...it cannot be said blindly to be a good thing…………

  • DeeDee 4958 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    I do retain my United States Constitutional Right to be as dumb as the next guy.

    Congratulations in this you have succeeded 
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2290 Pts   -   edited January 7
    jack said:
    This thread is basically a bunch of dumb people who have no idea what they are talking about,
    Hello Nom:

    And, you're an a**hole.  Always was, and always will be.

    excon
    The guy is a joke. Do you also notice the irony of what he did here? He came in accusing other people of doing the exact thing he is doing and doesn't even realize it lol. "Let me tell you how dumb you all are for pretending to be smart about physics while I tell you how smart I am compared to you lot about physics."

    I can't believe I actually felt sympathy for this guy about year or so ago when @Happy_Killbot (A guy with an actual science background) brutally demolished him in a debate about physics among other debates, that resulted in him b!tching about all of us being bullies lmao.

    It became very clear to Happy_K, me and a few others that he had obviously come across a few terms in physics and then assumed he had the same knowledge as the physicists that have dedicated their entire careers to this stuff and thus now thinks he is smarter than almost everyone he debates with. I might retrieve those debates later or you can search for them yourself; they are worth a good laugh. It was funny how he was trying to portray himself as being smarter than a guy with an actual science background. And now he has come in here and accused all of us doing sane thing that he does quite regularly.

    Here is our current argument btw:
    Nom: This thread is basically a bunch of dumb people who have no idea what they are talking about,

    ME:
    Well, can you please explain basic physics to me then as you are obviously more of an expert here compared to the rest us all. Also, please explain what is wrong with my original post. What in my post gave you the impression that I think I know than Newton?

    Nom: A physicist wouldn't be arguing with a layman on the internet.

    ME: I never said you were a Physicist. But you obviously have more expertise in this area compared to the rest of us. Or how else could you make a blanket statement that none of us know what we are talking about. Please explain basic physics to me, and also please explain what is wrong with my original post. What in my post gave you the impression that I think I know than Newton?

    Nom: Ah right, you are talking about Badminton.
    I am sure you will agree that no explanation is necessary here to point out how ludicrous he sounds as he does a pretty good job of proving that himself. Apparently, according to him because I agree with Newton's law of gravity (basic applied physics easily measured btw) means that I don't know what I am talking about and it also means I think I know more than Newton and Einstein.

    Also, according to him because I never said he was a Physicist means I am not talking about physics.

    Nom = just another guy with no self-awareness whatsoever, that also cops out when challenged by making lots of straw mans and putting words into other people's mouths instead of answering simple questions just like the coward he is. I am sure you will also agree that there is no guessing where he resides on the Dunning Kruger mountain:




    No more sympathy from me this guy gets now. I am done with him. I thought he had learned his lesson but obviously not. He deserves everything he gets.

    @jack
    Nomenclature



  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -   edited January 7
    The guy is a joke. Do you also notice the irony of what he did here? He came in accusing other people of doing the exact thing he is doing and doesn't even realize it lol. "Let me tell you how dumb you all are for pretending to be smart about physics while I tell you how smart I am compared to you lot about physics."

    Stop telling lies. I mentioned nothing about being smart. I fact, I claimed the opposite. The first part however is quite true and easily demonstrable. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, which is why you're busy spamming image posts instead of actually constructing a coherent argument. I've clearly annoyed you by pointing out that you're a dummy, but should I lie and pretend otherwise? I've managed to completely perplex you in the adjacent thread with a simple math problem designed for 13 year olds, so attacking me won't change the reality that you have a low IQ.

    ZeusAres42
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    Apparently, according to him because I agree with Newton's law of gravity (basic applied physics easily measured btw) means that I don't know what I am talking about

    ROFLMAO. 

    Buddy, Newton's theory of gravity was debunked in 1915 by Albert Einstein. I suppose I should thank you for proving the point. Maybe I should scour Google to find a suitably mocking image. Lol.

    ZeusAres42
  • @ZeusAres42

    Apparently, according to him because I agree with Newton's law of gravity (basic applied physics easily measured btw) means that I don't know what I am talking about

    ROFLMAO. 

    Buddy, Newton's theory of gravity was debunked in 1915 by Albert Einstein. I suppose I should thank you for proving the point. Maybe I should scour Google to find a suitably mocking image. Lol.


    Need I say anymore guys? As I said he does a pretty good job of making himself look silly all by himself.



  • NomenclatureNomenclature 805 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    Energy does not equal mass constant squared.
    Energy almost equal mass cosntant squared.

    Can you even read English, John? I literally wrote this out for you. There is no mass constant. Energy is equivalent to mass multiplied by the maximum speed of light, squared. 

    This is hopeless because you quite evidently have some sort of mental health problem.


  • Ok, let's just humour you for a second. Pleas explain in simple terms how Einstein Disproved Newton's law of universal gravitation. Please tell this is in simple terms. Or are you just going to continue to be a coward and avoid answering and just keep putting words in my mouth like before?
    Nomenclature



  • Dee said:
    @John_C_87

    I do retain my United States Constitutional Right to be as dumb as the next guy.

    Congratulations in this you have succeeded 
    Are you sure? Thanks......
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch