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?

124»



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • A scientologist playing a roll of a person leaning his brother is a math savant. Really?

    is it Ice-cream night? Choclate ice-cream is good....Ice-cream night is good.... sleep and ice-cream? is it ice-cream night?

  • @ZeusAres42
    yeah, but the algorithms that we have today definitely show Einstein was right.
    Really which one's?



  • @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.


    Where Newton and Einstein differed was in their theories about why gravity occurred in the first place. Newton was wrong here. Put simply Newton was able to explain quite a few things about gravity, and talked of it as a law. Einstein came along and was able to do a lot more and also explain why gravity existed in the first place. However, there is one thing he did mention he was unable to do and not so sure anyone else would be able to do either for a long time but I don't remember what that is.

    Anyway, I never disagreed with Einstein. Also, the fact that we also now have computer algorithms that can do calculations at far greater scalability than a hundred Einsteins combined is also pretty strong proof that Einstein was right.


    Side note: Einstein was a great guy. Some people think he wasn't any good at maths even though he had mastered calculus by the time he was 15. He was also able to outsmart all of his teachers; one of his teachers actually said he was an obnoxious, insolent child that would never amount to anything! I definitely need to retrieve that biography of his that I only read about a quarter way through.



  • John_C_87 said:

    A scientologist playing a roll of a person leaning his brother is a math savant. Really?


    Wait, ain't that Tom Cruise?



  • John_C_87 said:
    @ZeusAres42
    yeah, but the algorithms that we have today definitely show Einstein was right.
    Really which one's?




    All of them.



  • @ZeusAres42

    I would decribe it as Newton was instructed to tell gravity as a law by the church ZuesAreas42


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42

    Where Newton and Einstein differed was in their theories about why gravity occurred in the first place. Newton was wrong here. Put simply Newton was able to explain quite a few things about gravity, and talked of it as a law. Einstein came along and was able to do a lot more and also explain why gravity existed in the first place. 

    That's part of it, but you're missing the most important aspect. Newton's theory depended on time being an absolute and universal constant, and the speed of light being a variable. In Einstein's theory it's the other way around. That's why Einstein's theory is called relativity. It's a reference to the relativity of time and space to the observer.

  • @ZeusAres42
    All of them.
    No they don't....... Time algorithm and natural numbers are Einstein’s downfall.......

    We can all prove Einstein correct by simply writing the theory of relativity as the law of relativity E = Mc ^2 in theory is only saying E ≈ Mc ^ 2 as Fact. We are supposed to wait for a solution form an equation that can never produce a solution. The expectation is Science would have been able to set a fix equation in algebra to correct the issue of natural numbers being mixed with real numbers......not going to happen. It has gotten so desperate that physics has actual corrupted time as well by public demand exchanging one ratio for a completely different ratio.

  • @Nomenclature

    That's part of it, but you're missing the most important aspect. Newton's theory depended on time being an absolute and universal constant, and the speed of light being a variable. In Einstein's theory it's the other way around. That's why Einstein's theory is called relativity. It's a reference to the relativity of time and space to the observer. 

    B.S Einstein pushed to corrupt time mathematically as it followed Galileo’s law of odd numbers. It slowly became an obsession of his. In fact uncorrupted time mathematically is the first constructive proof Einstein he was wrong and his peers and people never seen this issue because time was over all too complicated for them to keep track of…precisely. 

    Some getting the best of you… “fu fighter”

  • @ZeusAres42

    That isn't his name...


  • The facts are the fact a diameter of a circle is a mathematical chord and all circles have more than one chord inside each of them. It is the death of Pi after 4000 years because it depends on a line segment that goes outside the circles boundaries of area….say goodnight.. Gracie. "George Burns"

  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 811 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Irrelevant

    Albert Einstein's theories of special and general relativity do not have any direct connection to the mathematical constant pi (π). Pi is a mathematical concept that describes the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter, and it appears in many mathematical formulas, including those used in geometry and trigonometry. Einstein's theories, on the other hand, deal with the nature of space and time and how they are affected by the presence of matter and energy. While pi may be used in calculations related to the geometry of space-time, it is not a fundamental concept in either special or general relativity.
    ZeusAres42
  • @JulesKorngold

    Pi is in the Einstein field equation for General Relativity JulesKorngold. Want it to be irrelevant establish it is not in the field equation it is that simple. The first sign of something being obviously wrong is that Pi has been removed from the linear form of General Relativity E = Mc ^2 the lie of spacetime was used to elaborate and profit on poor mathematics practice. There is no Space Time there is simply time and a glace it was a ratio of natural numbers and the reason for this ratio was to keep time within the scope of natural numbers.


  • @JulesKorngold

    Would you like to go over just how inaccurate Pi is and why? I will agree that by use of scientific method risk is minimized some what by the unknow Pi creates. I would consider it off topic but I am willing to broaden my opinion on what is and is not on topic a bit. Time is a math tool of navigation...

    I will be in and out the rest of the day s my response will be broken up accordingly.


  • JulesKongold

    Space-time | Definition & Facts | Britannica
    space-time, in Physical science, single concept that recognizes the union of space and time,  A SINGLE CONCEPT Adding decimal pionts of a unrealted ratio to another ratio is one major lame azz method of union in mathmatics...

    To address a con/cept a union between space and time the factures of time must include translations of scale between real numbers and natural numbers that are not in traditional decimal ratio.

    according to Einstein’s theory there is no such thing as “simultaneity” at two different points of space, hence no absolute time as in the Newtonian universe. 

    Time is absolute as it is set in natural numbers not Newtons Univers. Time is absolute as it is was set in natural numbers to match the 360 degrees of a circle not Newtons Universe. The fact it was part of a list of natural numbers at a point of use describes a mathematical absolute.

    Well simply said until navigation is defined by a proper and detailed understanding as time Einstein would never find and document position of proposed similarity nor will anyone else. Absolute time is created only when a ratio of a circle is proportional to its chords and circumference set in two general areas.

    First area: The inside of a circle itself. All circles. We prove this by drawling a circumference by use of a center point.

    Second area: The outside of a circle by use of inverse calculus and a scalene traingle 


    NomenclatureDee
  • JulesKorngoldJulesKorngold 811 Pts   -  
    Argument Topic: Sorry

    @John_C_87
    Your responses are incoherent babbling and word salad.  I'm moving on.
  • "I get it it is to complicated for you.....This grievance is a lot less complex though than any other I have addressed. Sorry I could not explain it ina simpler way from you."
    Relativity 107f: General Relativity Basics - Einstein Field Equation Derivation (w/ sign convention) - Bing video
    Concept Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
    : something conceived in the mind : Thought, Notion
    : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances

    Your responses are incoherent babbling and word salad.  I'm moving on.
    My responses.... All I am doing is pointing out that spacetime has been cited by outside sources to be a lie a fabrication of truth.

    Truth...is...
    Einstein's theories of relativity, on the other hand, deals with the something conceived in the mind and how those thoughts are affected by the presence of matter and energy. While pi may be used in theory related to the geometry of an abstract or generic idea genderalized from a particular instance spacetime, it is only a fundamental notion in both special or general relativity.

    Every circle has between 1 - 360 degrees,  not 0 - 360 degrees, the chioce is (a) 0, (b) 1, and (c) 360  the argument is about changing natural numbers to real numbers not Pi which is an approximation. Natural numbers are whole numbers and real numbers are not all whole numbers.


  • The room Title is called Can you prove Einstein wrong? Not prove Einstein correct. Please read the Title more carefully as so you have a better understanding before you begin debating, maybe?. The title is clear about what is being talked about.

  • Besides the 4000 year old blunders of Pi the principle of natural numbers is the biggest obstacle that was in Einstein’s way. As in linear algebra if zero does not exist a negative number is also not available for this sets of numbers. What happens if they are used anyway, we get errors that are not as expected and the fix equations which once held the errors in check vanish and engineering catastrophes take place.

    Even now the faith is the world can simple replace the 360 degree position with a zero so a false pretense of negative numbers can still be used in calculations which are held in check by using other methods to triangulate real position for the algebra linear equations.


  • BarnardotBarnardot 521 Pts   -  
    @ZeusAres42 @Nomenclature ;Or are you just going to continue to be a coward and avoid answering and just keep putting words in my mouth like before?

    Well you know that you predicted right all right because his only response is to laugh and scough at you like he did because Hitler did that because in the end all Hitler did was ask zee questions and never answer any because he was not to bright and didn't have any answers any way.

  • @Barnardot
    Please keep on topic.............
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited February 2023

    In a scientific method Pi is/was tested in scientific method by using a round column and square cube and testing the volume of the area between the two objects, one column and one square cube. As a result, the scientific method fails to address the broken boundary of the circumference of the circle created by setting a chord length longer than the diameter of the circle by using simple division to describe a ratio. A portion of the diameter is aways calculated to be outside the circles circumference but is not calculated in the scientific method when creating the fix equations used to limit margin of error in calculation..

    In itself the error may seem miniscule, small, unimportant but when added to calculations the error can grow unpredictably. The error is not created by gravity and spacetime grievances persued by Einstein’s theory this was a mistake in identifying the conflict of natural and real numbers created in both types of compass, and in anolog clock / digital time. Unless corrections had been made in calculus to address no zero or negative numbers are part of the list of natural numbers the use of said numbers in algebra is limited, unpredictable then dependent on a scientific method that cannot accurately fix a margin of error.

    Thank you. 


  • @John_C_87

    I'm sorry but almost every single debate on this debate site no matter the debate you always seem to attribute it to having some kind of relavance to the circumference of a circle. 
    John_C_87Nomenclature



  • @ZeusAres42

    Ratt, Out of the cellar, 1984.

    Round and round
    What comes around goes around
    I'll tell you why
  • @ZeusAres42
    I'm sorry but almost every single debate on this debate site no matter the debate you always seem to attribute it to having some kind of relavance to the circumference of a circle.

    My understanding was the debates had been associated to faith in some way. I was trying to make the point of a few dangerous scientific acts of faith in mathematics by fixed equations which create errors only connected to a circumference of a circle as these mathematical practices are used a great deal in many calculations.

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    John, this entire site is both frustrated and appalled at your continuous racism against pi.
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @John_C_87

    John, this entire site is both frustrated and appalled at your continuous racism against pi.

    It's not Pi itself it is the way how natural numbers somehow without explanation get a zero, be it clock or compass. Racism is not the right word to use here as the zero had been added for visual appeal only. Would you use or buy a stopwatch that read 12:60:60 at the start? Would you buy a compass that has 360° and no 0° as a starting position? Looks over fact...sells..

    Einstein never explained clearly how algebra works with natural numbers that do not have zero or negatives to remove during distribution did he? It isn't spacetime Einstein need to theorize on it was space-natural numbers he should have figure out.



  • John_C_87 said:
    @ZeusAres42
    I'm sorry but almost every single debate on this debate site no matter the debate you always seem to attribute it to having some kind of relavance to the circumference of a circle.

    My understanding was the debates had been associated to faith in some way. I was trying to make the point of a few dangerous scientific acts of faith in mathematics by fixed equations which create errors only connected to a circumference of a circle as these mathematical practices are used a great deal in many calculations.

    Here are some other food items you can enjoy with your Pi:


    • Watercress,
    • Onion,
    • Rhubarb,
    • Daikon
    • Spinach,
    • Artichoke
    • leeks
    • Avocado
    • Durian


    :)



  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @ZeusAres42
    I'm sorry Zeus Ares42 I think you might have been talking about Quiche not Pi .....lol

     Though I have been known to bake a nice Strawberry Rhubarb cPi.

    c = Chord


  • John_C_87 said:
    @ZeusAres42
    I'm sorry Zeus Ares42 I think you might have been talking about Quiche not Pi .....lol

     Though I have been known to bake a nice Strawberry Rhubarb cPi.

    c = Chord


    Maybe this will reveal all: Here are some other food items you can enjoy with your Pi:


    • Watercress,
    • Onion,
    • Rhubarb,
    • Daikon
    • Spinach,
    • Artichoke
    • leeks
    • Avocado
    • Durian



    Dee



  • @ZeusAres42 ;

    If it isn't Pie, Pi, or Quiche it the un croute. It is not a savory pie unless it has vegetable and sauce.
    Is this your first potential action as a united state Presadera debate mathematics?

    The real argument here is not even over Pi it is about Natural number not having a zero. You do know that right ZeusAres42? No zero means no negative numbers and no negative numbers means algebra becomes seriously flawed outside the limits of the science method and fixed equations.


  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @ZeusAres42

    The grievance I hold with Pi is different as the math method now used in a lot of situations is not suited Wikipedia’s word not mine and the scientific method used to set fix equations for algebra is not real what it is said to be.

    In short the idea of putting a column in a square and filling it with water at 70 degrees does not address the principle by dividing any circumference with the circles diameter places the notion a chord exists which is longer the a circumference width. This is never true under any mathematic condition. The Scientific Method is either applied on the wrong mathematical calculation or is performed in the wrong way..


  • Natural numbers are a part of the number system, including all the positive numbers from 1 to infinity. Natural numbers are also called counting numbers because they do not include zero or negative numbers. They are a part of real numbers including only the positive integers, but not zero, fractions, decimals, and negative numbers.

    What are Natural Numbers? Definition, Examples, and Facts (cuemath.com)

    Untenable. : not able to be defended
    Untenable Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

    The question is how did Einstein add a zero the the list if natural numbers?
    How did physics add a zero to the listt of natural numbers?
    How do we make algabra still work in calculations expecting a precise
     sums, products, powers, and integers?
    Numbers have solutions based on a GPS?  


  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    You  have to choose between dialectic neopatriarchialist theory and textual narrative. It could be said
    that many situations concerning the role of the observer as writer exist.

    “Class is part of the failure of art,” says Bataille. The subtextual paradigm of reality implies that the establishment is intrinsically
    unattainable. In a sense, Derrida uses the term ‘the postcultural paradigm of narrative’ to denote the stasis, and subsequent defining characteristic, of
    capitalist sexual identity which negates narrow iterations as PI  ( in a nagellian sense of such) 


    I suggest you read the implications of how Lewis used the Kiprean model of modal semantics to destroy your flawed " thesis" regards PI.

  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @Dee
    Neopatriarchialist semantic theory and postdialectic capitalism ail Vaudois mash thence Essay.docx - In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is | Course Hero

    Please make the connection to natural numbers as you are Replying to a post that has nothing to do with the grievances of Pi.


  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87


    Please make the connection to natural numbers as you are relying to a post that has nothing to do with the grievances of Pi.


    The connection is casual if not totally  irrelevant as the Kiprean model of modal semantics clearly demonstrated, why do you find this so difficult to contend with?


  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited February 2023

    Casual : subject to, resulting from, or occurring by chance

    Casual Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

    An arc is a line that is not infinite it can become a circle. How can we identify these type arcs? The connection of compass and clock to natural numbers without zero is not casual and was changed only based on the public's lack of understanding math. 

    why do you find this so difficult to contend with?

    A compass and clock are lines which are bent as an arc that ends as a circle. There is not two ends to be a start and finish like a straight line we only have one end that must be both start and finsih.

    It's complex first, and can be part or the whole reason of destruction otherwise blamed to be caused by climate change. it also does not deal with the switching from natural numbers to integers in compass and clock, as well "we" cannot find details to share with other in why natural numbers are not the fact . Second. It is this type of situation in mathematics that makes many parts of math hard to understand or enjoy...that aside. please direct my attention to where in the Kiprean model it clearly describes how a zero can be added to the list of Natural numbers. 1,2,3,4,5,6, etc. also why anyone who holds accuracy as a priority in mathematics would be able to do such thing based on the known information a geometric circle is an arc and does not go on infinitely it completes a circle. Whereas it is the scale of a circle which is infinitely expanded on. This means the circle start is not ever a semantic like integers suggest and that it’s by logic the start & end position are the same identical spot. Thus, the use of real numbers 360 - 1 only.


  • @Dee

    I suggest you read the implications of how Lewis used the Kiprean model of modal semantics to destroy your flawed " thesis" regards PI. 

    I had taken up your sugestion sorry for the delay it reply. The fact Pi is an approximation is not thesis ... The fact Natual numbers had not been set on a compass and clock are not casual...

    Kripke semantics? I have been going over the work suggest for some time and other works as well and am still find no info detailing that a precise arc is not ever like a straight line as it is never reaches infinite, as the arc returns to the start of the arc. Are you or was Kripke talking about a scribble, approximating maybe? When precise a series of arc's create a circle always. Having read the information and finding it "clearly" does address this issue placed in all algebra please provide the location in the works where this takes place? 

    Anyone can look at the sky on a clear night and see a round moon?

    Anyone with eye protection can look at the sky and see a round sun on a clear day?

    We can say these objects are not the perfect precise circle but they are not infinte and the arc only can be traced around the same numbers over and over? Right? The connection is proven casual? Really?

    The obvious thing in observation here is the moon and sun are seen from earth as a O? This does not change as they are viewed from space as well the sun and moon are still O?



  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited February 2023
    @John_C_87
    I have been going over the work suggest for some time and other works as well and am still find no info detailing that a precise arc is not ever like a straight line as it is never reaches infinite, as the arc returns to the start of the arc

    Clearly you have not been "going over the work" particularly thoroughly John:-


    I fail to see what is so difficult for you to grasp here.

    Dee
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited March 2023
    @Nomenclature

    Clearly you have not been "going over the work" particularly thoroughly John:-

    You fail to see? I told you specifically where to look the use is the use of Infinite...Do you see the two infinite symbols in the equation, one is under the limit symbol of the functions. The other over the summation, summation being the sequence of any kind of numbers. The equation is supporting my question as this equation only applies to a limited idea of straight line that is not contained by description outside said equation. You are showing a formula describing only a reason someone or a group might corrupt a mathematical fact and hide it from others. Also, unbeknownst by you or Dee this equation when working with a clock or compass takes on a straight line that is always contained by a method of triangulation. GPS ??? Ring any bells with you two?

    I fail to see what is so difficult for you to grasp here.

     I know you can't see the difficulty I do not understand why, I have been telling you it has no arch symbol to identify a arc. The connection made between compass, clock, and natural numbers that is claimed as arbitrary is wrong. You do know if this equation addressed my question it would have a arch symbol in it somewhere? 


  • @Nomenclature
    Thank you for trying...............
  • TwiddleDee

    I suggest you read the implications of how Lewis used the Kiprean model of modal semantics to destroy your flawed " thesis" regards PI. The connection is casual if not totally irrelevant as the Kiprean model of modal semantics clearly demonstrated, why do you find this so difficult to contend with?

    As a point of fact no the Kiprean model though it was used to "suggest as a faith "  by Lewis, you, and Nomen does not address the point that a circles circumference is an arc, while a straight line is only half of the centuries old formula of  C / d = Pi, holding only the D = diameter in relevance, which is clearly not a straight line held form infinity. Very important here in this grievance, the diameter if from a circle, in scale all circles might reach infinite, exists only inside the circle. Agree? This is fact. Right? All of this just a part of two completely different separate issues and not the one small problem described by you to be without substantial significant engineering questions? 

  • @John_C_87
    I have been going over the work suggest for some time and other works as well and am still find no info detailing that a precise arc is not ever like a straight line as it is never reaches infinite, as the arc returns to the start of the arc

    Clearly you have not been "going over the work" particularly thoroughly John:-


    I fail to see what is so difficult for you to grasp here.

    What I grasp is that there is no symbol like the one below describing a arc. Do you remember what the Wikipedia said about Pi it can't be used in a solution expecting a sum, products, power, or integer? Well, here it is, a couple goof ball trying to do just that...A arc will when repeated in length reach a circle not infinity, at which time a orbit will occur. Now care to show where Lewis or anyone addresses the grievance in algebra this blunder of intelligence created? Make no mistake here my agreement to without argument depart form organized educational institution came by way of this issue, the institution was unable to address this fact making anything I would learn not only a risk but very possibly pointless. No matter how well the Institution of learning felt it hid this kind of faith from the public.  

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 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