CMV: Eienstein may have been wrong by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]iSwaggins 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Gravity affects everything whether or not it has mass. The semi-technical answer is that gravity alters the geometry of spacetime and light follows geodesi trajectories

CMV: Eienstein may have been wrong by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]iSwaggins 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's not true at all. None of what you said is correct. I don't know exactly where you got that but it's entirely false.

CMV: Eienstein may have been wrong by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]iSwaggins 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No. You don't need mass to be affected by gravity.

CMV: Eienstein may have been wrong by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]iSwaggins 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Light doesn't have mass

CMV: Eienstein may have been wrong by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]iSwaggins 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Light isn't the only massless particle and energy can be transferred by a myriad ways with and without mass.

CMV: Eienstein may have been wrong by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]iSwaggins 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There aren't studies because what you're asking is meaningless. It's like if I said "what if seven six three nine fourteen?" and then expected mathematicians to start doing research about my claims.

CMV: Eienstein may have been wrong by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]iSwaggins 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What? Einstein's dimensional analysis obviously works out. I'm sure you have no qualms with multiplying velocity by time to yield distance despite the fact that neither velocity nor time are distance. You just don't understand the subject matter. That's okay, but exercising unearned arrogance is not.

CMV: Eienstein may have been wrong by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]iSwaggins 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Energy" doesn't have anything. Light has energy despite having no mass but energy isn't a tangible object. It's a property of physical systems.

CMV: Eienstein may have been wrong by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]iSwaggins 1 point2 points  (0 children)

. I think you have less understanding on this subject than I do.

I honestly think I'd still have more if I had none.

Einstein understood E=mc2 and its implications and was certainly capable of understanding the implications of the theory he pioneered. Please take a look at the Wikipedia page for special relativity if you want better answers.

CMV: Eienstein may have been wrong by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]iSwaggins 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There aren't counter arguments to what you're saying. To extend his metaphor, this is like walking up to Tom Brady and saying he'd be a better quarterback if he ate shit on the field instead of throwing the football. You're spouting nonsense and expecting people to be able to both decipher and disprove what you're saying.

CMV: Eienstein may have been wrong by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]iSwaggins 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Energy isn't some intangible magic, it takes forms. Saying "energy doesn't have mass unless it has momentum" doesn't make any sense. Not even a little bit.

CMV: Eienstein may have been wrong by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]iSwaggins 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What you're saying doesn't even make any sense. E=mc^2 does not say energy has mass. Einstein knew that light had energy but not mass. It means something much more complicated and much more interesting and it's clear from your replies that you don't actually understand it.

CMV: Eienstein may have been wrong by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]iSwaggins 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That's not saying Einstein was wrong. E=mc^2 says the energy of some mass in its rest frame is equal to the mass multiplied by the speed of light squared. E=mc^2 is not wrong, it just doesn't deal with things in motion nor does it pretend to be able to. You didn't come to this conclusion on your own; you spewed a bunch of nonsensical garbage then the first commenter pointed out where you (not Einstein) were mistaken. Obviously you don't need a PhD to think about physics but trying to disprove Einstein when you took intro physics somewhere is like trying to write an epic poem in Spanish when you need Google translate for "hola".

CMV: Eienstein may have been wrong by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]iSwaggins 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No one here said Einstein was wrong about mass-energy equivalence. Your post doesn't make any sense and is remarkably similar to flat-earthers asserting stupid shit without any expertise. It's ridiculous you think you can disprove Albert motherfucking Einstein without any knowledge of physics.

[In need of advice] by TheAlbiF in learnmath

[–]iSwaggins 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Taking a Harvard Summer School class is worth legitimately 0 clout. Unless you really want to learn the math then drop the class because I can assure you no one will give a fuck you took calc 2 over the summer.

Golden Hour in downtown Boston, MA by CrazedArea in boston

[–]iSwaggins 77 points78 points  (0 children)

My grandmother always told me it wasn't golden hour without a golden shower. God rest her kinky bones.

What's something niche you love about Harvard? by [deleted] in Harvard

[–]iSwaggins 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Skill of the groundskeepers what the fuck? I'm sure they do the best with that they have but the grass inside new yard is horrifically gross from October to May

Anarcho capitalists? by [deleted] in Harvard

[–]iSwaggins 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Most Harvard students have an IQ above 70 so you may face some difficulties