Did einstein actually get the math wrong?

And if you can prove it, what's the political agenda about not acknowledging this.. this shit is incredible..

Apparently things like black holes get completely destroyed mathematically here showing einstein and relativists botched the math bigtime and nobody noticed. Then another built on the mistakes and another built on it, and then nobody questioned it anymore.

>division by zero as an example

youtube.com/watch?v=wRsGPq77X0Q
youtube.com/watch?v=Y8FsfFs_nvM&t=0s

This flies in the face of everything we've been taught.. From how the sun works to gravity to a lot of things. The electric/plasmic model of the universe seems to add up extremely well.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers
astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
usamo.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/napkin-2016-07-19.pdf
space.com/31900-gravitational-waves-discovery-ligo.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

I'm too fucking high to deal with this, effectively, OP. But I'll try. I may or may not return Godspeed..

Fucking hell, man. Two hours? Should I be raking notes?

idont know math so i donkt know

No, He was right.

I don't think his math was wrong. It's just that most scientists simply aren't qualified to interpret this shit.
Hence
>the universe came out of something that was nothing

The thing with relativity is that it works fine until you come to a singularity. a description of the sky as blue is completely accurate until sunset

No, he's been proven right through empirical means (i.e. observation of natural phenomena rather than just building on mathematical assumptions with other mathematical assumptions as you're suggesting) many times over.

That was oppenheimer

no, something is definitely wrong with conventional math, we just don't know what

we don't even know if digits are real. we only know their relationships are true

for example, is 7 a discrete property, or is seven a property resulting from a set of properties which 7 is the result of, but which does not cntain 7, ala set theory? or is seven a property of some strange vector of a natural number, e.g. nature always expresses 7 as pi times 2.xxx?

we don't really know. we only know their relationships are true, and math expresses relationships rather than discrete properties.

things like goedel's incompleteness theorum, which means no language can inherently prove itself, lends doubt to the ability of the human mind to construct a consistent language capable of conveying ACTUAL information. our language can simply lead another person to a result which their own mind might also be capable of comprehending, because, if we COULD portray it in language, it would have already been solved, easily, and our problems would lie at another level. which is basically an infinite threat.

or there's also the fact that bit information is ALWAYS nonrecoverable (which could lead to the above problem.) in that information systems themselves are themselves subject ot entropy, that entropy is a function of bit decay in photons, and that theoretical math, which preserves information, and theoretically can reverse a hash, is fundamentally wrong.

a good example of this is the blindfolded prisoners in a line with a gun, problem.

I think you should check out the videos.

Einstein married his cousin who was decades his junior and when he died his will dictated that a portion of his ashes were to be spread at the wailing wall in Jerusalem. Odd for an atheist.

Go away, mathematician scum.

I'm not really math scum. I study pedagogy and formal systems, which necessitates surface level understanding of a variety of fields.

in reference to any problem whose goal it is to solve, we need two layers neurologically to put it into formal language. one layer consists of the genes and neural structure required to simply be capable of discerning the pattern from noise data. the second layer requires mirrored or repetition genes, and then even more neurons, which are then capable of reproducing it mentally, and that mental model then becomes the basis for language.

systems can't solve for themselves because the system we work with was always written to solve the conventions of a lower level problem. this isn't just mathematics, this is linguistics, genetics, etc. if you knock out a single copy of a gene that we have two of, one called foxp2, humans literally become incapable of speech and higher cognition. foxp2 is even found in mice. the crucial step for humans was having two copies of it.

these sorts of things are the reason why there's no such thing as reforming low iq or criminal people. society can't be reformed. society operates at an animal level, and moderate iq humans simply aren't even capable of making mental models of morality.

Jews are quacks in every field.

Jewish physics is no exception. Scientists have been coming out for years saying Einstein was a quack.

Lets be honest we dont know shit about the Universe.

>I study pedagogy
And here i thought you knew what you were talking about...

Should have known it, a mathematician wouldn't drone on and on without actually saying anything.

Retard, physics formulas are never perfect, they only approximate the actual result, and can break down completely under extreme conditions. Einsteins stuff is a better approximation than Newtons stuff, and correctly predicts more things, so we use it.

I recall some chess genius corrected one of Einstein's formulas (which Einstein confirmed), can't recall the guys name tho.

I know from the field I'm involved in that you have merchant citation rings where the merchants proclaim each other the greatest thing in the field ever, so I can imagine this being the same in 20th century theoretical physics. I mean what ever happened to M theory and shit? That merchant hasn't managed to prove his cool theory or made it falsifiable. Is it a coincidence that he was involved in leftist journalism before getting into physics? I wager not.

Newton was wrong but it works for everyday applications, Einstein works but still be proven wrong sooner or later.
Who gives a fuck.

I thought I read somewhere that Einstein was initially correct about this (hawking radiation, etc) but then later second guessed himself and changed his mind. Which we now suspect is wrong.

I dread to think what would happen in the far future if it were ever run by jews.

"Oy vey hershel, this hyperdrive isn't going anywhere"
"No moshe, the theory is correct, it was written by a Jew! This just means we need to add more epicycles to the theory!"

Stick to 19th century racial science Sup Forums literally all of you are brainlets who haven't a clue as to what they're talking about

I don't study pedagogy for schools. I study pedagogy for formal systems, which would be for things such as investment finance.

what I said are all plausible mathematical propositions.

the fact of the matter is that there IS a truth. you can't convince most people of that, it's impossible. next, we CAN'T know truth but we can come incrementally closer to it. your next job is to try and convince people of that. you also CANT convince them of that. the next step after that is to determine the best process for determining what is incrementally closer to truth, and determine it AMONG people who can't agree on the previous two points. sounds hard, doesn't it? the third point is basically the role of government and pedagogy more broadly.

the first step is to convince 70 iq idiots that truth exists, and that their emotions are invalid. it's impossible. the formal systems that compose their cognition are too limited, and overridden by their limbic system. this is why no formal system can describe itself, but only lower level processes.

this is why we know, for a fact, that math is necessarily incomplete. have a look at entropy in information theory. you don't need to be a mathematician to understand it.

>I thought I read somewhere that Einstein was initially correct about this (hawking radiation, etc) but then later second guessed himself and changed his mind. Which we now suspect is wrong.

He added the cosmological constant to force his field equations for general relativity to work for a static universe because he didn't believe the universe could be expanding. Then Hubble found evidence the universe was expanding so he threw out the cosmological constant.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

How about you refute some claims or go back to studying L functions.

Let me get this straight.... Einstein's theories are LITERALLY just meaningless sets that default to zero and are intertwined with his "friend's" formulas?

So it's literally jewish nepotism in math form. The only faggots who are allowed to have their formulas recognized by the scientific community and the media are faggots who (((Einstein))) hand picked to include in his ridiculous formulae

Fucking wild.

confirmed

einstein was smart, seeing the pattern in the cosmological data of the time took serious fucking brainpower, but he was far from the smartest man alive. his gift was vision.

there are indeed merchant circlejerk rings. they aren't the only thing holding physics back, steve hsu has lots to say on the issue, but they don't help

the smartest man to ever live was probably von neumann, an austrian who simultaneously contributed to information theory, quantum physics, computer modeling, the manhattan project, and even erdotic information in cell biology. he could recite verbatim entire books he had read 20 years ago.

the 2nd smartest might be a man named mochizuki from japan, who first basically corrected a bunch of 30 year old errors that other people just accepted, then produced a single, seminal work of 10k pages, intensively cross referenced, which basically no one else is capable of understanding

einstein was popular because the shit he explained was comprehensible to normies

The man main lined cocaine. Of course he made a few mistakes while jotting down theories.

>Holy fuck! What would happen if we could travel at the speed of light?!

He was just so much smarter and well respected than anyone else who could possibly dispute him?

>meaningless sets that default to zero

If Einstein could become so successful and well respected for his work to where his name has become a synonym for 'genius', and could do this purely on the basis of meaningless bullshit, then he would have to be even smarter than the level of smartness required to write accurate field equations.

Or just a typical kike.

I'll go with simplicity, seeing how he never produced anything useful.

Einstein was a fucking thief he stole everything he "discovered"

Electric universe + Crothers are considered bullshit by anyone with any sort of credentials within science.

rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers

It's one of the articles where rationalwiki doesn't suck.

t. physicist

sets that default to zero might have meaning though. both in their expanded form, as expressing relationships, and in the fact that we still don't really understand zero.

in ergodic systems, equations aren't collapsible, because the equations express relationships, and the goal of math is to express relationships rather than discrete properties.

if zero represents a new relationship or a phase transition, rather than a quantity, equations that reduce to zero might still have meaning.

>considered bullshit by anyone with any sort of credentials within science.
wew lad. Now I KNOW it's fact and the Jews have hijacked science for the last 60 years.

Nigger, keep writing. I like what you're saying.

t. highschool dropout

There's no hijacking in science. Everything's verifiable, so if you don't trust anything you can do the derivation or experiments yourself, if you aren't mentally retarded.

>Everything's verifiable
Except Einstein's field equations which just got destroyed as Jewish mysticism.

>he never produced anything useful

Good luck using Newtonian physics to make your GPS work, idiot.

astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

Einsteins field equations hold up perfectly fine.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

All this knowledge only to discover the world is 5000 years old..

Does anyone know whether it's possible, to teach oneself math/physics up to a university level? Are the required resources even available?

>I'm neither a mathematician nor a physicist. More accurately, I'm a gardener and home handyman who does science in his spare time.
He's literally a conspiracy theorist. who doesn't conduct any fucking experiments to disprove these theorems

The Internet/textbooks is everything you need to educate yourself on anything. Just make sure you seek credible sources.

>

Nothing used in university physics courses is unavailable to you, but if you try to teach yourself by privately reading books or watching videos there's a pretty good chance you will have some significant misunderstandings and no one will correct them for you. That's the main value universities provide: exams managed by independent parties to tell you when you're wrong.

Check /sci/ wiki page. They guide you through basic to really advanced books. Of course, you have to do the work.

this guy is a janitor i think

Yes he was.

Physics proff. actually did all the math in front of us to end up with his infamous e=mc^2.

(((((((independent parties))))))))))
thread is pure gold.

GET THE FUCK IN HERE BROS

This PDF is really useful for Mathematics : usamo.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/napkin-2016-07-19.pdf
For physics, watch Walter Lewins lectures.
Fredric Schuller's lectures on quantum theory are good too.

So I'll probably fuck up along the way? Aren't there forums where this sort of things is discussed?

Do you really think it's a conspiracy when a fucking TA gives you a bad grade on a physics exam you retard? Do you not see how that's different from reading books on your own and never being checked by anyone else?

It's possible. A lot of universities have free recorded shit on their site or youtube. Besides that, you can use the university's website or physicsforum.com to find a list of books good for teaching it yourself.

Once you get a bit more versed you can easily watch the videos in x1.5 or x2 speed, saves a lot of time.

What level are you currently at?

>I dont understand Godel's Incompleteness theorems.

Please stop popmathfag, those theorems apply to very specific formal systems, it used to make any epistemological claims outside of that.

he sounds like a quack, but from my understanding non-big bang and dark matter models were still considered viable until the late 90s.

after the transition to the big bang/dark matter being canon, physics has ground to a halt. though this might be due to the lack of low hanging fruit remaining.

thoughts?

you might want to start reading about godel's incompleteness theorum or the 100 hat riddle.

formal logic never removes the need for human cognition, which, to this day, remains superior to formal systems. information on some level is always non-recoverable (this is what the hat experiment is about, when termed in bits.) so trying to create a logic that functions on the level of bytes, when bits convey bytes of information, but entire bytes are lost in transmission, means that neither formal logic, nor mathematical systems can completely convey cognition or concepts that function at the level of cognition. our cognitive structures takes n a bit of information "hungry wolf" and the information we understand is more than hungry wolf, because our physical computational system does not make a computation on the level of bits. Local information is lost, but greater theoretical information is preserved in a physical level in our brains, in a manner that is not transmissible to someone with incomplete hardware (say, children who think the wolf is cuddly.)

in order to convey cognition lvels of information, we would need to create a language that interfaced between two computers, or two humans, whose language simulated the process of an entire brain.

until our language can simulate entire brains, godel's incompleteness theorum will remain relevant, because when mathematicians look at mathematical code, that code is a stand in for other large amounts of information that is in theri brains, that they can't communicate on paper.

>an user has gone rogue. he is waking up
>shut him down

No. If relativity was wrong your gps wouldn't work
Faggot.

Nobody's stopping you from reading books and not going to school user.

>independent parties
universities are an institution just like any other institution. They are subject to the same flaws as any

>suppress the truth
>let there be no doubt who the crazy conspirators are

yes, godel's work applied to very specific theoretical system. the larger principle has ALWAYS held true. godel's work, like any work, was amazing because proving it in specific contexts gives us a stronger framework for approaching the rest of the world with it.

there are similar incompleteness theorums for other fields, including entropy and linguistics, because it seems to be a universal relationship among systems that convey information.

>What level are you currently at?
I'm a medfag, haven't really done any math since high school (5 years). The last classes I took were calculus and physics with calculus.
I've forgot most of it, though.

Wow. You are so smart. Thanks for the fantastic contribution.

You can't be convinced by a teacher if his math doesn't check out. This is not humanities.

You should actually study math. You'd be interested in it.

Lots of what you are talking about is counting angels on a pin head, like asking if 7 is a discrete property or wondering if nature describes 7 as pi times 2.xxx. Nonsense questions.

Bit information is not always non-recoverable, unless you are talking about an infinite timeline. Then so what? Bit decay in photons is gibberish. You are conflating physical entities with math.

You saying that theoretical math which "preserves information" and theoretically can reverse a hash, is just plain wrong. Hashes aren't theoretically reversable due to the pigeonhole problem. An infinite amount of messages can resolve to any single hash value, pick any hash algorithm you like.

They were viable because we hadn't discovered certain things yet. It's going a bit slow right now because we're at a point where probably only an Aha-erlebnis, or an unexpected discovery, might propel us forward. The money and time needed to build more accurate equipment also is a pain in the ass, especially when you've got multiple groups trying to "earn" a fund.

For example, the main difficulty with simulating things related to the big bang is the energy needed. Right now we've got particle colliders like the LHC, but we don't have the methods (yet) of smashing the particles together with enough energy to get a clear view of how stuff behaves at such a high energy density.

Black holes have always fucked with reality though

its no suprise they dont work out mathmatically.

That book sounds fine. Say, if I have completed Khan Academy will I be able to follow this one? I'm really interested in profound Math, but don't want to get into College for it.

I don't think that's good advice. The napkin is for people which are quite good at math (math competitions kind of thing). If you've not gone to a math camp or participated in math competitions then it's better to just go to a university page, check the curriculum and look at the recommended books.

the irony though. Fact is, only people really deep into maths and science can argue on such subject. The masses must just take their words for truth.

Oh and before you try, I'm not a dumbass who cant into maths. I studied electrical engineering.

I see, what I'd do is

>find list of recommended books on university page/physics boards
>get a list of what topics a uni teacher would work through (often ~25% of a book can be skipped because it goes in too much detail)
>work through it yourself + youtube tutorials for topics you don't fully grasp

Khan Academy is excellent for the first things you want to know, or brush up on, like Calc1/2/3 and Linear Algebra.

Einstein didn't derive the Gravitational Field equations Hilbert did and then took the credit. The maths is correct. No one knows if the theory is actually correct that is why it is called the Theory of Relativity.

Bravo!

I see. Also, most people here are refined gentlemen. Thanks.

Einstein was a fraud who stole all of his formulas off of forms dropped off at the patent office he worked at.

He was also a serial adulterer who fucked over a hundred women outside of his marriage. Not joking google it if you don't believe me. He literally lived to slay pussy while pretending he knew deep shit.

>electrical engineering
>can into math
I see a contradiction here

I've thought about it. I think spending all day with my nose in a book would start to really make me depressed though.

>bit photon decay conflating physicality with math
maybe. math is just an approximation of abstract physical phenomena, which are absolute. if decay is an absolute phenomena, and math doesn't account for it, then math doesn't well approximate the relationships at play, of which information preservation is a very important one.

some people define black holes as simply a region of space where information is no longer capable of being conveyed, hence representation as zero or a singularity. decay might not be the right word for it, but normal math stops being a factor after that transitio.

>hash
all information is hashed in some form though. we don't have an infinite amount of messages to solve an infinite amount of problems, and every single moment is subject to decay. also, large enough computational systems are necessarily bound to a single location in space, say, a large dyson sphere computer. that itself is a limitatin on the range which information can travel.

information is necessarily bound by physical systems and reflexivity in physical systems. math is ideological.

my understanding is that a more comprehensive understanding of quanta will stil not help us resolve the large disparities between the math, the principled exceptions we make in physics, and the lack of direction.

we've kind of written a different code for every specific and small region of behavior we can observe, all of wich break outside of arbitrary circumstances.

I could be wrong. these are just grumblings I've read.

?

Literally nothing in physics is proven/disproven mathematically. Its empirical proven.

Damn impressive insight user. Thanks for your valued input is what I think the Swede means.

Your thinking is impressive and rare. Keep it up! The picture has nothing to do with it.

Lol. Right on.

That's the thing

Math is just another language

If the user's brain can't comprehend something, then it's limited.

>my understanding is that a more comprehensive understanding of quanta will stil not help us resolve the large disparities between the math, the principled exceptions we make in physics, and the lack of direction.
>we've kind of written a different code for every specific and small region of behavior we can observe, all of wich break outside of arbitrary circumstances.

I think you're pointing at the difficulty in unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics into a theory that should work in every case. I'm not exactly sure, but I think it's the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics that's causing the problems.

There's also the effort of trying to unify gravity with the other forces, but to see if or how this works we need higher energy particle colliders.

>we CAN'T know truth
"Truth" doesn't exist. It's a reification. If you can't tell me how far it is from another existent object, it's irrational to talking it existing. Statements are true or false but that (tautology) creates nothing substantive, only nominal.

It could have meaning. I've long since assumed the universe to be represented as either 0 or 1. But Einstein's sets are clearly useless nepotistic constructions.

Did you watch the video? I feel like I'm the only one in the thread who bothered. Look closely at the section on what r represents. allegedly "radius", but things aren't what they seem...

just play by the numbers

We'll have the ley lines freed before the normies even know what happened.

Except for the fact that we can now literally see black holes...
>pic related

Graphical representation only.

You actually need to hit the pavement at terminal velocity to believe in gravity?

>Black holes aren't real
>We can literally fucking see perfectly round >Objects so dense they distort & bend light
>The gravity wave was just recently discovered
>When something on the fabric of space-time suddenly condenses,, the resulting redistribution & focus on a smaller point literally causes ripples in the fabric of space-time
>We no longer have to depend on light or other shit to find things in space
>We can utilize gravity waves which pass through virtually everything with little resistance
>They FURTHER prove black holes are a thing & there is no reason they would not be a thing, its just logically apparently that something can be extremely dense & have extremely strong gravity
> space.com/31900-gravitational-waves-discovery-ligo.html

I want this whole "black holes aren't real" meme to fucking die

(((einstein)))

What the fuck are you talking about. General Relativity is predicatively valid at least to the point where our instrumentation can't detect variation greater than the margin of error. The existence of black holes is itself a strange artifact of the implications of general relativity.

>I want this whole "black holes aren't real" meme to fucking die

Blame the media. They've literally meme'd this "black object of death that works as a space vacuum" into existence, instead of using proper terminology.

reeeee

But that is kind of exactly what stellar mass black holes look like, at least from the outside

ah, thanks

you can find discussion of these sorts of things if you like to troll the blogs of physicists or computer scientists

indeed. we expect improvements in language to be able to convey entire neurological systems to a person with a damaged brain. it's simply impossible. there's no way to explain to a child that a wolf id dangerous, explain to a nigger not to kill and rape a woman, or explain via language a mathematical principle that needs a certain type of neurology to process

I think probabalistic is just a stand in for stochastic equilibrium seeking functions whose low energy states we don't completely understand.

even if we come to understand low energy quanta states (before they settle into newtonian states) it won't necessary resolve any of the fundamental contradictions that exist.

human bodies, minds, principles, all exist in a realm of molecules that is beyond our control. that is truth. it's not reified. and people like you create a huge problem by smoking weed and stealing the mic from mathematicians who are trying to actually do substantive work.

I did watch it. he's a cook, but some of the things he pointed out are common sense.

another poster alleges set theory is counting angels dancing on the ead of a pin. I agree to some degree, mostly.

on the other hand, if we attempt to redefine 1 or 0 in terms of the sets of probabilities or energy states the represent, it might go a long way to smoothing out a lot of data that looks chaotic now, but really represents high energy and low energy temporary equilibriums.

again, math represents systems and relationships. we need to try and unwind the relationships of 0 and 1, the way we unwound it for pi, and the way einstein unwound space via relativity and geodesics.

or not. who knows. that's why the field is in a rut.

ii

Nassim haramein has some cool theories on the scale and energy of the universe based on fixing these fuck ups