Can you prove Einstein wrong?

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42

Instead of talking about subtle difference between GOD versus God in algebra here.

There are more complex issues in calculus that are also contributing to errors in Gravitation by Newton and Relativity by Einstein. It is with your help though I now am able to describe the event in Calculus more securely as the Law of Proportional Presession. So, thank you for contributing to the room’s population and my work.

John_C_87

Firstly, the inverse of zero is always zero. Secondly, the first part of your sentence is about geometry, while the second part of your sentence is about linear algebra, which are two different things. Zero most certainly does exist in linear algebra. 

Agreed, but zero does not exist in all components place in algebra linear problems for equating...that is the target for the calculus future enthusiast.

A professional debates absolute truth in the improvement of mathematics, or a person can argue status quo as a means to seek income as a so called profession....

John_C_87

 that is demonstrably false. If c = πd then therefore d = c/π. The problem with you "holding my hand" is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Let's just take your first line as an example:-

Yet the truth is that C ≈ π/d Calculus required...

Luigi7255

(deleted)

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

Yet the truth is that C ≈ π/d Calculus required

John, why don't you simply admit that you don't understand basic math? The circumference of a circle is exactly equal to π multiplied by d, not approximately equal to π divided by d. 

It's c = πd, not c ≈ π/d. 

John_C_87

John, why don't you simply admit that you don't understand basic math? 

Mathematics algebra is all about the test of work.............there is always more the one way to get a result...no test, no submission to presumtion from fact...

It is not basic math that is in question it is truth. The reason is your method, the popular method used by finding approximation holds not test in algabra or trigonomaty to be performed...in mathmatics no test becomes a act of faith.......

The circumference of a circle is exactly equal to π multiplied by d, not approximately equal to π divided by d. 

No not every number divided by a number produce ratio...Einstein picked a method of approximation with no test.......and did not build the test before release of thoery.

The problem is we hold all of mathmatics by our lie. The lie is proportional and not gedneral relative when we fabricate fact and say a circumference is proportional to the last chord in a circle call diameter. No matter how many times you make the same basic mathmatics mistake in establishing ratio there will never be a precise solution. Convienantly thee also is no test? Really how riscky is that?

Now lets go over just how far off the approximation of Pi reall is.... and, why?

Pi is claimed to be a ratio of about 3:1, what is to be written as 3.14159 : 1, yet a factual ratio of 4:1 can be made between four equal chords in a circles circumference.  Instead of dividing the circumference with the last chord inside the circle called diameter. We can simply just divided the circumference into four equal parts and use that length of those four lines to align as chords inside the circles circumference. Of course, the added advantage is "we" meaning those competent of calculus can also test the result use trigonometry with a scalene triangle producing the circumference length as a long side of the triangle as a straight line outside the circle....

John_C_87

It's c = πd, not c ≈ π/d. 

The theory is C =  πd

The fact is C ≠ πd

 The best formula of ratio is C = Ch x 4 it describes a three-dimensional space.

Ch = chord

C = Cercumference

d = Diameter 

John_C_87

Nomenclature said:

@John_C_87

Yet the truth is that C ≈ π/d Calculus required

John, why don't you simply admit that you don't understand basic math? The circumference of a circle is exactly equal to π multiplied by d, not approximately equal to π divided by d. 

It's c = πd, not c ≈ π/d. 

This is what can be administered as truth Pi = Pi ≠ C

 

Dee

@John_C_87

Hi John , do us all a favour , shut the f-ck up ......can you do that?

Dee

@John_C_87

Hi John , do us all a favour , shut the f-ck up ......can you do that?

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

Pi is claimed to be a ratio of about 3:1, what is to be written as 3.14159

At this point I'm perfectly aware that it is is impossible to reason with you, but nevertheless what you appear to be having extreme difficulty understanding is that pi is not an approximation. It's an exact number, which describes exactly the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle. It can't be expressed as an exact fraction because it is what mathematics calls an irrational number.

Please follow Dee's advice. You don't have a grasp on the most basic rules of math, and the vast majority of what you write is either wrong, nonsensical, or both.

John_C_87

Please follow Dee's advice. You don't have a grasp on the most basic rules of math, and the vast majority of what you write is either wrong, nonsensical, or both.

I will the very first time I wish to take up drinking alcohol again......

At this point I'm perfectly aware that it is is impossible to reason with you, but nevertheless what you appear to be having extreme difficulty understanding is that pi is not an approximation. It's an exact number, which describes exactly the ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle. It can't be expressed as an exact fraction because it is what mathematics calls an irrational number.

Here is the irony....you agree with me but are not aware of what you are saying supports my find. The find I speak of the diameter of all circles are simple one of their chords............. A ratio must be proportional and is not alone...Pi as being irrational is not alone but is in a list of popular approximations like .333333, .66666666, and .99999999, no it is not impossible to reason with me you are not reasoning..........To be crystal clear my goal is to improve asthmatics not to defeat you in debate....you agree with me and do not understand why.

Nomenclature

Pi as being irrational is not alone but is in a list of popular approximations like .333333

.3 recurring is not an approximation either. It's exactly one third. One divided by 3 is .3 recurring. And it isn't an irrational number like pi, because it can be written as a fraction. 

If you want to debate math John, then please learn the basics of math. Otherwise this is a pointless exchange.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

What you're getting confused about I think is the difference between approximations and the way that numbers naturally work. For example, 0.3 is not exactly a third, because multiplied by 3 you still have 0.1 left over. That's why it must be 0.3 recurring into infinite. After .33, the gap is closed to 0.01, after 0.333 to 0.001, and so on. With the addition of each 3, the gap to 1 gets increasingly smaller. Since it is never mathematically possible to reach exactly 1, the number has to extend into infinite. It isn't an approximation because it isn't mathematically possible to make the number any more accurate.

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

If you want to debate math John, then please learn the basics of math. Otherwise this is a pointless exchange.

We are talking math, true........We are not debating math,false.... Why you do not ask theright quesitons is conditioning....

.3 recurring is not an approximation either. It's exactly one third. One divided by 3 is .3 recurring. And it isn't an irrational number like pi, because it can be written as a fraction. 

Besides of the issue it is impossible to create a ratio simply by division..... 

Again, I will stick to what is clear as fact.......precise..........1  ÷ 3 = .9 + .1 as written numeric in a rational state using a test in linear equation set by algabra....You can now produce zero on both sides of the linear equal sign, You are welcome. It can be written in algabra and again you are proving part of my piont that Einstein made mistakes in basic math and algabra....

What you're getting confused about I think is the difference between approximations and the way that numbers naturally work. How many numbers are there, in truth, in the same scope as letters of English grammar? Nine numbers and one vowel.........? 

Pardon the joke made with zero

John_C_87

@Nomenclature
It isn't an approximation because it isn't mathematically possible to make the number any more accurate.
What?

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

Again, I will stick to what is clear as fact.......precise..........1  ÷ 3 = .9 + .1

I'm convinced at this point that you're actually bona fide insane. 1 ÷ 3 is not 0.9. I've literally just told you what 1 ÷ 3 comes to, so how you can still be getting it wrong is frankly beyond my ability to fathom.

What?

It's a self-explanatory sentence, John. It is not mathematically possible to express a third in decimals any more accurately than 0.3 recurring. 

John_C_87

Okay, I was wrong....Happy 
the algabra test is not 1 ÷ 3 = .9 +.3 or  1 ÷ 3 = .3+.03333 It should be close enough as long as I holds the theory of gedneral realtivity as theory...........say you.....
is it .1 +(1.2 ÷ 3) = (.2 + .1) - .1?
A wait there is not test... for correct testing of ratio rational value 1 ÷ 3 that way either...

Lets try using an expression of degree as trig translation that has no 0. 
360 ÷ 3 = 1 ÷ 3 but so we are still back at 360 ÷ 3 ≠ 1 ÷ 3 as boolean...
The difference thought is we do calcilate 1/3 as rational 120 Degrees and the left side of the equation is solveable, right side is next...We can also multiply 120 Degrees by 1.....the issue then is there are now no negative values as allzero's have been replace with the value one....... Might be problimatic for some...
   360 ÷ 3 = 120 x 1
        120  = 120
120 - 120 = 0
             0 = 0

1/3 is rational when divided into values only that have Mass or Energy to hold them as a rational states.............. hence one cannot hold three....It is only the margin of error and approximations which increase of decrease with those numbers that can not be devide and remain rational.

What you're getting confused about I think is the difference between approximations and the way that numbers naturally work. For example, 0.3 is not exactly a third, because multiplied by 3 you still have 0.1 left over. That's why it must be 0.3 recurring into infinite. After .33, the gap is closed to 0.01, after 0.333 to 0.001, and so on. With the addition of each 3, the gap to 1 gets increasingly smaller. Since it is never mathematically possible to reach exactly 1, the number has to extend into infinite. It isn't an approximation because it isn't mathematically possible to make the number any more accurate.

The values do not move into the infinite area they are repeating, and the motion is circular not linear.........Like walking in circles in the dessert....... It’s a digital human mistake not the motion in numbers towards infinity......1-9 each value you express is getting smaller and this describes a curve in a three dimensional graph in Trigonometry. 1/10th is > 1/100 not 1/10 >= 1/100... The algebra test tells us the error is set at negative numbers. at some point the numbers overlap. As fact irrational values are influenced by the motion of the other eight numbers before any overlapping is to take place in mathematics. 

@Nomenclature

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

I'm convinced at this point that you're actually bona fide insane. 1 ÷ 3 is not 0.9. I've literally just told you what 1 ÷ 3 comes to, so how you can still be getting it wrong is frankly beyond my ability to fathom.

Just following directions............keep reading...........

It's a self-explanatory sentence, John. It is not mathematically possible to express a third in decimals any more accurately than 0.3 recurring. 

Then don't.............that is what the test showed Einstein..............

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

The values do not move into the infinite area they are repeating, and the motion is circular not linear.........Like walking in circles in the dessert....... It’s a digital human mistake not the motion in numbers towards infinity.

John, my friend, you're writing absolute gibberish again. 0.3 recurring means you repeat the 3 into infinite. It has nothing to do with motion, either linear or circular. 

If you want to have a conversation you must make clear points which another person can read and understand. 

John_C_87

@Nomenclature
John, my friend, you're writing absolute gibberish again. 0.3 recurring means you repeat the 3 into infinite. It has nothing to do with motion, either linear or circular. 

I disagree, 0.3 recurring means a scale is changed the numbers are all getting bigger in scale on the other side of zero. 0.3 = 300, 0.33 = 3,300, 0.333 = 33,300, 0.3333 = 333,300 they are forming circle and do not collide as they are expressed as slowing down before contact will be made. It was a problem to be solved in calculus and trigonometry...for computer engineering and the space race.....

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

I disagree

It doesn't really matter John. What I wrote is objectively true.

0.3 recurring means a scale is changed the numbers are all getting bigger in scale

That's not a reason to disagree with what I wrote. 

they are forming circle

They are not forming a circle. A circle is a geometric shape. 0.3 recurring is a decimal number.

John_C_87

They are not forming a circle. A circle is a geometric shape. 0.3 recurring is a decimal number.

Where you are correct a circle is not formed the arc created by scale the ends of the arc decimals make never touch as a loss of speed in motion is also taking place ...The arc of a decimal does not even spiral .....Decimal numbers are ratio........They change both mass and velocity....There are only nine numbers and they represent the potential of infinite because that change size and mass…

They change scale......

In mathematics, an arc is defined as a portion of the boundary of a circle or a curve. It can also be referred to as an open curve.

What is Arc in Math? Definition, Angle, Length, Circle, Examples (splashlearn.com)

It doesn't really matter John. What I wrote is objectively true.

No its not............it is objectively false.....

Objective evidence is evidence that we base on provable facts. In other words, we can prove the facts by measurement, analysis, and observation. It is possible to evaluate and examine objective evidence. It means the same as ‘compelling evidence.’

Objective evidence - definition and meaning - Market Business News
objective proof definition | English definition dictionary | Reverso

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

No its not............it is objectively false.....

Objective evidence is evidence that we base on provable facts.

No John, it's objectively true. 0.3 recurring means you repeat the 3 into infinite. It has nothing to do with motion, either linear or circular. 

I'm going to leave now, because this conversation is completely pointless and only one of us is making coherent arguments. Have fun.

John_C_87

No John, it's objectively true. 0.3 recurring means you repeat the 3 into infinite. It has nothing to do with motion, either linear or circular. 

It only repeats while searching for a precise value.............. a value it never will reach................the faction is irrational in decimal from due to the fact and provable fact a decimal is part a ratio................ it is disproportionate to one but proportionate to nine. 1 ÷ 3 = .33333 ( approximation objectively true or false) , 9 ÷ 3 = 3 (Precise) unconditional it is or it is not.

This means the solution to precision is to use calculus or trigonometry to translate one into nine....for the fraction of one-third.

The result is you are only saying a resource will be dwindled before a precise calculation are ever made in using irrational numbers as ratio. I still agree……….

I'm going to leave now, because this conversation is completely pointless and only one of us is making coherent arguments. Have fun.
No only one of us is putting a firm price on their proof Einstein is wrong. E ≈ Mc ^ 2
 I am having fun.......
I have all these facts you have a claim you are being objectively... True.........Converting the 1 to 9 is less work then writine a number forever........without motion you are negating the infinite and opting for duration...just a little F.Y.I. The bigger lie that is weaved the harder it is to keep it together......

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

a value it never will reach

That's only true in the abstract sense, not in the physical world. The remainder is reduced with each consecutive number, and there are infinite consecutive numbers. Hence, the number never stops trying to reach the correct value. If the point is to express a third of something physical, then eventually there will come a point where the remainder is too physically small to be split any further. In other words, if I wanted to split the Earth into three equal pieces, the number 0.3 recurring would eventually give me three equal pieces plus a quark.

John_C_87

I think I can... I think I can....Just get there a ratio of 4:1 solid is better the a irrational 3.14159:1

The fact is we are trying to get the left side of the ratio closest to the right side of the ratio. Not the left side closest to its rounded rational self. Fact a ratio of 3:1 is found in a line which is always longer then the circles circumferce is wide.

That's only true in the abstract sense, not in the physical world. The remainder is reduced with each consecutive number, and there are infinite consecutive numbers. Hence, the number never stops trying to reach the correct value. If the point is to express a third of something physical, then eventually there will come a point where the remainder is too physically small to be split any further. In other words, if I wanted to split the Earth into three equal pieces, the number 0.3 recurring would eventually give me three equal pieces plus a quark.

Or,

 In the real world just use 3 equal pieces of the earth by translating the world into 9 pieces first with a translation made by geometry scale 1: 9 then 9 ÷ 3 = 3 we do not need to repeat and dividing 1 quark by 3.....again, you are making great efforts to hold calculations always in a position the cannot be tested by standard linear algebra practices.

I really hope I am not keeping you from anything.......

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

In the real world just use 3 equal pieces of the earth by translating the world into 9 pieces first

John, 1 divided by 9 is .1 recurring. It's exactly the same thing, except with more work.

John_C_87

Nomenclature said:

@John_C_87

In the real world just use 3 equal pieces of the earth by translating the world into 9 pieces first

John, 1 divided by 9 is .1 recurring. It's exactly the same thing, except with more work.

Yeah, I know, that is why I wrote divide 9 ÷ 3 convert 1 to a 9 first using geometry the earth is 360 degrees, so it is written like this 360 ÷ 9 = 40 degrees. Do not do the conversion second. 3 x 40 will = 120 much better then 1 ÷ 3 = .333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 all of those threes still does not make ≈, = someone should have told Einstein how easy it was to turn mathmatic theory to fact some times..........Keep thinking natural numbers not real numbers..........

John_C_87

We clear yet?  E ≈ Mc^2 the key to mathmatic fact from theory........no more million and billion dollar bids to prove Einstein right? We can do both for less then $100.00 American....... 

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

Yeah, I know, that is why I wrote divide 9 ÷ 3 convert 1 to a 9 first using geometry the earth is 360 degrees, so it is written like this 360 ÷ 9 = 40 degrees. 

Lol. What you wrote was this:-

 In the real world just use 3 equal pieces of the earth by translating the world into 9 pieces first with a translation made by geometry scale 1: 9 then 9 ÷ 3 = 3

If you "translate" one (Earth) into 9 pieces numerically, it gives you 0.1 recurring, and if you multiply it by 3 it gives you 0.3 recurring, which is exactly where you'd be if you simply divided it by 3 in the first place. 

Why you've now randomly jumped into talking about degrees I have no idea, but you can divide 360 degrees by 3 exactly (120), so there's no reason whatsoever to divide by 9 if you only want 3 pieces.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

We clear yet?

With all due respect to you John  (and I mean this in the nicest possibly way), we won't ever be clear until you take a basic math course. You're obviously interested in math, which I think is great, and in my opinion it would benefit you tremendously to stop writing gibberish and get involved in learning about it.

John_C_87

@Nomenclature

If you "translate" one (Earth) into 9 pieces numerically, it gives you 0.1 recurring, and if you multiply it by 3 it gives you 0.3 recurring, which is exactly where you'd be if you simply divided it by 3 in the first place. Why you've now randomly jumped into talking about degrees I have no idea, but you can divide 360 degrees by 3 exactly (120), so there's no reason whatsoever to divide by 9 if you only want 3 pieces.

We are not randomly talking about degrees and you obviously know why we get a precise, exsact  answer of 120 degrees... See again you understand that it is additional work to use a second process of geometrry to find 1/3 precisly.We did a test to find the source of the irrational state of 1/3rd. Finding by swithcing to natural numbers the issue was resomved and we do not need the real numbers to find exsact ratio. Like you insist on me doing even after you provide not test to back you opinion.

Lets try using an expression of degree as trig translation that has no 0. 
360 ÷ 3 = 1 ÷ 3 but so we are still back at 360 ÷ 3 ≠ 1 ÷ 3 as boolean...
The difference thought is we do calcilate 1/3 as rational 120 Degrees and the left side of the equation is solveable, right side is next...We can also multiply 120 Degrees by 1.....the issue then is there are now no negative values as allzero's have been replace with the value one....... Might be problimatic for some...
   360 ÷ 3 = 120 x 1
        120  = 120
120 - 120 = 0
             0 = 0

John_C_87

@Nomenclature
With all due respect to you John  (and I mean this in the nicest possibly way), we won't ever be clear until you take a basic math course. You're obviously interested in math, which I think is great, and in my opinion it would benefit you tremendously to stop writing gibberish and get involved in learning about it.

I really do not care you can't or do not understand the facts...hearing gibberish...Decimals are an existing ratio set in a precise proportion. 10:1,100:1,1000:1, 10,000: 1, 100,000:1 when values of division past through the ratio displaying a force of enegry as inertia they have been tested to not be a exact ratio.......You are not disagreeing with me you disagree with basic mathematics and the very model you bering into the deabate as mathmatic proof....

This isn't only a basic math mistake this is the pointing out of an advanced mistake that Einstein had made in applications of precision in mathematics geometry and calculus.

With all due respect to you John  (and I mean this in the nicest possibly way), we won't ever be clear until you take a basic math course. You're obviously interested in math, which I think is great, and in my opinion it would benefit you tremendously to stop writing gibberish and get involved in learning about it.

You do al least in some small degree understand that the decimal system is a exact ratio? which is a good thing...........

F.Y.I I refresh my understanding of mathematics all the time.........it is required when searching for methods of testing to improve math overall.

Dee

@John_C_87

F.Y.I I refresh my understanding of mathematics all the time.........it is required when searching for methods of testing to improve math overall.

John_C_87

@Dee
I feel the same way....................E ≈ Mc ^ 2 

John_C_87

With all due respect to you John  (and I mean this in the nicest possibly way), we won't ever be clear until you take a basic math course. You're obviously interested in math, which I think is great, and in my opinion it would benefit you tremendously to stop writing gibberish and get involved in learning about it.

I know your trying to be nice I am not taking it personal.........I’ve gone over basic classes but still none describe how 10ths, 100ths, 1,000ths 10,000ths, 100,000ths are not ratio for even numbers you say it is clear to you how they are a ratio for odd numbers? Then just share how the principles is a ratio for odd numbers? Why is it such a big deal? Why the secrete that must be told by someone else? 

John_C_87

NomeClature

@John_C_87

I do not feel I am trolling.

You're writing long paragraphs of gibberish John. You keep saying Einstein is wrong, but you've shown absolutely nothing which suggests that. 

John_C_87

NomeClature?
Qote from Wikipidia: Pi

The number π appears in many formulas across mathematics and physics. It is an irrational numbers, meaning that it cannot be expressed exactly as a ratio of two integers, although fractions such as {\displaystyle {\tfrac {22}{7}}} are commonly used it approximates. Consequently, its decimal representation never ends, nor enters a permanently repeating pattern. It is a transcendental number, meaning that it cannot be a solution of an equation involving only sums, products, powers, and integers

It is a transcendental number, meaning that it cannot be a solution of an equation involving only sums, products, powers, and integers. 

This left two chioces for mathatmtitians.

1.     Imply or mathematically show Pi is removed through linear algebra. This would mean lie or  give mathematical proof to everyone who questions the process that a negative number exists in all natural numbers without zero. 3.14159 + E = M – 3.14159 c ^ 2

2.    Change the equation of General Relativity directly to create an equation which does not produce a sum, product, power, or integer. E ≈ Mc ^ 2

Quite from Wikipidia

For thousands of years, mathematicians have attempted to extend their understanding of π, sometimes by computing its value to a high degree of accuracy. Ancient civilizations, including the Egyptians and Babylonians, required fairly accurate approximations of π for practical computations. Around 250 BC, the Greek mathematician Achimedes created an algorithm to approximate π with arbitrary accuracy.

Make mathmatics better.......................

John_C_87

Incase you have  problem understanding the above quote taken from Wikipidia which tell about Pi limitations, Quote:
" It is a transcendental number, meaning that it cannot be a solution of an equation involving only sums, products, powers, and integers."

General Realtivity when written as a equation that cannot be a solution, also fact not theory, or as an equation involving a sum, product, powers or integers it is to be written as E ≈ M c ^2

John_C_87

In order to describe just how wrong General Relativity is with a sum like .01 or any number according to Wikipedia a person would be required to correct 4,000 years of miscalculation and solve the on-going problem all natural numbers do not have a zero. I do claim to be all knowing of math but what I do know is without zero real negative numbers are non-existent in a linear calculation. Yes, you heard it at DebateIland first from John_C_87.

John_C_87

The results of the pole..........are unanimous any belief of proof to Einstein’s errors is believed to come with cost over $100.00.

ZeusAres42

Einstein was not wrong, and neither was Isaac Newton. now, let's see if people continue to see no further than the end of their noses.

Nomenclature

@ZeusAres42

Einstein was not wrong, and neither was Isaac Newton. now, let's see if people continue to see no further than the end of their noses.

You know that Einstein and Newton disagreed with each other, right?

ZeusAres42

Nomenclature said:

@ZeusAres42

Einstein was not wrong, and neither was Isaac Newton. now, let's see if people continue to see no further than the end of their noses.

You know that Einstein and Newton disagreed with each other, right?

yes, but I also know they agreed with each other on many things. For instance, they both agreed that Cows are aerodynamic. 

Nomenclature

@ZeusAres42

yes, but I also know they agreed with each other on many things. 

Sure, that's absolutely true. But one of them must have been wrong at some point because they both produced diametrically opposing theories of gravity.

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42
Einstein was definitely wrong, Isaac Newton was wrong and had a good idea he was wrong mathematically about the law of gravity.

Nomenclature

@John_C_87

Come on John. Let's get you to bed, buddy.

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42

The hope is that after 4000 years the solution could not be found….

Even if we disregard the fact Pi cannot be used in any formula that expects a sum as result Einstein and Newton included the argument becomes mathematics. Why does depends math need to depend on science when science moves degrees and time from a state of natural numbers into a partial state of real numbers. Natural numbers have no decimal points which is the reasoning behind time being set in ratio and the only scientific reason this is done is to make math easier for the public.

Any solution that takes 4000 years to find is doubtful a person will be learn in days, weeks, months….  

ZeusAres42

John_C_87 said:

@ZeusAres42
Einstein was definitely wrong, Isaac Newton was wrong and had a good idea he was wrong mathematically about the law of gravity.

yeah, but the algorithms that we have today definitely show Einstein was right.