Physics Van 3-site Navigational Menu

Physics Van Navigational Menu

Q & A: covering Einstein with Baloney

Learn more physics!

Most recent answer: 03/31/2011
Is really true ? ? ? WoW !!!
- AL (age Older)
My State
Thanks for calling our attention to that site.
I've upgraded your question to our "We call Baloney" category.

The first page I checked on that site was entirely concerned with making a huge deal of this approximate equality:

gravitational acceleration (g) near the surface of the earth * one year ~= speed of light (c).

The site insisted that this relation was exact and had a very deep meaning. In fact it's only an approximate coincidence.  Using the standard value for g (~9.81 m/s2) I get the left-hand side being ~3% higher. The surface gravitational acceleration isn't even quite uniform over the surface of the earth. The length of a year has changed a little over time. If you check any of the nearby planets, with different surface gravity and different orbit times, you'll see it doesn't come close to working anywhere else.

It's such garbage that there's no need to check the other pages.

Mike W.

(published on 03/30/2011)

Follow-Up #1: another opinion

Mike W. Your answer regarding needs to be removed from your site due to its horid error. If you've studied physics, then you've studied math, and if you've studied math then you've studied probability. Obviously you didn't curb your "opinion" long enough to study The probability of E=q(AZ)^2 fulfilling "all" of the historically proven electrical entities "demands" that the equation is the one and only equation for energy. Then you totally skipped over the "obvious" historic oversight of Willem Gravesande. Besides the fact that the Cartesian Diver is proof to this. You just did some nasty quick calculations for other planets "assuming" that the velocity of Light is a constant. Rest assured Mike, that many wrongly denounced Einstein when he first published, and where are they now ? ? Where are they now that Einstein's equation has been proven half correct. They're just rubble in history. I suggest you take that WRONG answer off your site and do some deeper study and quit ignoring the pure "mathematics" on I'd hate to see you end up like all those "nobodies" who denounced Einstein, their "adamant" words way back in 1905 are just trash now. Do the right thing Mike . . . study . . . and stop opposing truth. Kind regards, Steve
- Steve (age 47)
People are welcome to check my arguments. And yours.

Mike W.

(published on 03/30/2011)

Follow-Up #2: Should we censor Baloney?

Q: is probably a 'facade' website to fuzz people scientific knowledge with some woowoo stuff and lure them into some sort of sectar organisation or in 'buy my book I know the truth'. Heck, I too can find such connections with 'c' : If I take my age in seconds, divide it by c and multiply it by Earth's gravity, the result is my age in years... Such websites should be closed down. People are afraid of the cold hard reality of facts and logic and prefer to seek refuge in fantasies. But in the end, fantasies lead to delusion and deception while facts will always lead you to where it has promised you.
- Anonymous
I've looked over a little more of that site- it doesn't get better with familiarity.

Still, I've got to disagree with your idea about shutting them down. In fact, this may be a good excuse to quote Milton:

"though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play on the earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously, by licensing and prohibiting, to misdoubt her strength. Let her and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?"

Mike W.

(published on 03/31/2011)

Follow-up on this answer.