A Layman’s Guide To Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity

ISBN: 0415473829

The first book I encountered after deciding I wanted to learn Einstein’s theory of relativity was Bertrand Russell’s ABC of Relativity, a supposedly layman introduction to the concept. I must be stupider than the layman because I had severe trouble grasping the concepts Russell was trying to explain. It didn’t help that he was layering explanations on top of each other, so that if you didn’t understand just a paragraph of what he was describing, you could be lost for the rest of the book. A third of the way through I had no choice but to give up and find another resource.

ISBN: 0486293157

I’m still not sure if the above book is intended for the true layman, but it was much easier to understand. It begins by explaining how motion is relative:

There is no apparent way to chart the absolute motion of anything; that is to say, there is no fixed, final frame of reference by which all motions can be measured. Motion and rest, like large and small, slow and fast, up and down, left and right, seem to be completely relative. There is no way to measure the motion of one object except by comparing it with the motion of some other object.


…the greater the distance between two events, the greater the difficulty of deciding about simultaneity. It is important to understand that this is not just a question of being unable to learn the truth of the matter. There is no actual truth of the matter. There is no absolute time throughout the universe by which absolute simultaneity can be measured. Absolute simultaneity of distant events is a meaningless concept.


The instant “now” has meaning only for the spot you occupy. You cannot assume that a “now” exists simultaneously fir all spots of the universe.

I learned that the reason we can’t travel at the speed of light is because inertial mass increases with speed. At the speed of light you would need an infinite amount of energy to push the now infinite mass, which cannot happen. So the speed of light (c = 300,000 km/sec) is the speed limit for our universe.

Electrons can now be accelerated to 0.999999999+ the speed of light. This gives to each electron a mass (relative to the earth’s inertial frame) that is about forty thousand times its mass at rest! Relativistic changes of time are also observable.

It also gave a great explanation of time dilation, whereby a space traveler ages slower than his counterpart remaining on Earth.

Back in Einstein’s time, scientists didn’t have the technology to prove their theories in the lab, so they ran “thought experiments.” Particle accelerators and colliders which have been developed since then have validated many of their thought experiments. However…

There is no experiment of any sort, the general theory says, by which an observer in any sort of motion, uniform or nonuniform, can prove whether he is moving or at rest.


This means that regardless of how an observer is moving, he can describe all the laws of nature (as he sees them) by the same mathematical equations. He may be a scientist working in a laboratory on the earth, or on the moon, or inside a giant spaceship that is slowly accelerating on its way to a distant star. The general theory of relativity provides him with a set of equations by which he can describe all the natural laws involved in any experiment he can perform. These equations will be exactly the same regardless of whether he is at rest, moving uniformly, or moving with acceleration with respect to any other object.


…suppose a boy comes along and kicks it with his bare foot. He shouts in pain because the kick hurts his toes. A Newtonian would say that the apple’s inertia resisted his kick. An Einsteinian can say the same thing, but he can also say, if he prefers, that the boy’s toes caused the entire cosmos (including the toes) to accelerate backward, setting up a gravitational field that pulled the apple with great force against his toes. It is all a matter of words.

Einstein’s relativity theory (technically there are two theories: the general theory and the special theory) also introduces a fourth dimension that we are unable to perceive. This is why regular people have such a hard time using their 3D oriented brain to understand Einstein’s theories. How can you understand something your brain was not naturally designed to understand? Answer: lots of thinking.

There are three space dimensions and one time dimension, united in a way that is specified by the equations of relativity. This structure is such that a geodesic, although still the straightest possible path in spacetime, is the longest instead of the shortest distance. This concept is impossible to explain without going into complicated mathematics…

Some additional passages I enjoyed:

Experiments using the Mossbauer effect have shown that time near the bottom of a building (where gravity is stronger) is a bit slower than time near the top of the same building. “A typist working on the first floor of the Empire State Building,” Gamow observed, “will age slower than her twin sister working on the top floor.” The difference in aging is, of course, infinitesimal; nevertheless, it is real and can be measured.


Galileo and Newton made experiments, but the extraordinary thing about Einstein is that he made no experiments. Moreover, he was often unaware of significant tests that had strong bearings on his speculations. He just sat alone, thinking deeply about the secrets of the Old One, as he liked to call the universe. Newton was a devout Anglican who spent half his life struggling to unravel the mysteries of biblical prophecy. Einstein had no interest in any religion except in the sense that Spinoza, whose secular pantheism he admired, was religious. Yet he and Newton, in addition to their giant intellects and creative intuitions, shared a strong sense of wonder toward the Old One and of humility before the unanswerable riddle of existence. Both were Platonists in their conviction that what science knows is an infinitesimal portion of what it does not know.

Tons of diagrams and artwork are provided to help explain and conceptualize the topics. You will still need to re-read many portions for full understanding, but unlike with Russell’s book, you won’t become lost for good if you happen not to understand a paragraph or page.

Einstein’s theories are the most important scientific developments since Darwin’s theory of evolution, but most people can’t describe it. Why is this? Because it’s a very hard concept. It does take time and deep concentration to even begin to imagine the fourth dimension that is necessary for understanding space-time, and basic physics knowledge is essential. In spite of this difficulty, relativity was a massive leap forward in the history of science, and I believe all men curious of his place in the universe should take a couple hours to understanding this important concept.

Read More: “Relativity Simply Explained” on Amazon

187 thoughts on “A Layman’s Guide To Einstein’s Theory Of Relativity”

  1. Good article it’s cool to see something science related on ROK. Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time is another good one. Talks about the universe, black holes, stars, elementary particles and other cool stuff and written by probably the best astrophysicist of our time

    1. I heard he was a player too. Not even ALS stopped him from getting pussy. It just further proves that the nature of women is just another “thing to understand” and can be studied. He’s the poster child for mind over matter.

      1. This is comment of the year. I know everyone here believes Game all but cures Cancer but celebrity is like Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right A B for getting pussy.

      2. I don’t know if he was. You may be thinking of Richard Feynman. Hawking has been quoted as saying he doesn’t understand women.

  2. The angle of the dangle is equal to the square of the hair times the heat of the meat divided by the torque on the pork provided that the lotion between the motion of the ass cheeks remains constant.

  3. Awesome article. I feel that all RoK readers should make an attempt to understand special relativity at least, if they are too scared to approach general relativity. The process of learning it just opens your mind. Trust me, anyone can understand it if you find a good book or lecture that presents the material well and commit yourself to the goal of learning.

  4. The GPS Navigation System is a practical implication of the GR on Earth. It predicts that the clocks in the satellites will tick faster than identical clocks on the ground. If these effects were not properly taken into account the GPS would not work accurately at all.
    But I still think that the theory is not universally applicable and Einstein was a plagiarist. LOL

    1. Gravity has no time diferrential. The very instant two objects change in proximity to each other, the change in gravitational force between them is registered instantaneouly regardless of the distance between them. That is to say if a fat chick 500 million light years away from you begins approaching you, you would feel the gravitational tug immediately, but you wouldn’t be able to see her for 500 million years, the time it would takes for light to travel the distance. A skinny chick would register less force, but instantaneously nonetheless.

      1. “the change in gravitational force between them is registered instantaneouly regardless of the distance between them”
        This is not true (only in the Newtonian sense). For example, we know from measurements on the decaying orbits of binary pulsars, the “speed” at which gravitational effects propagate has to be finite. In fact, in theory, it has to be equal to the speed of light.

        1. Gravity must be a constant in the sense that the gravity holding YOU down is the SAME gravity that held the dinosaurs down. The light reflected has changed the picture since time elapsed, but gravity seems to meld with the space grid itself. It’s a COMPONENT of space itself. Where you see the space grid become un-uniform, black holes, the edge of the universe, gravity compliments the changes in the grid. At the edge of the universe is the limit of the existence of space and gravity. Within the universe you see that space can be punctured, folded , twisted, shrank, stretched, rolled up like a ball of silly putty, dribbled and even thrown.

      2. That does not actually contradict what he said as long as he was referring to raw gravitational pull as opposed to visual attraction. That Lardo could put almost anyone in (his) orbit on account of sheer condensed mass alone. Best keep clear the event horizon on that one if you do not want to collapse upon and become an integral part of that unsightly mass.

      1. Possibly not cosmically significant compared to Einsteins discoveries and such, but it has been observed that once they gain enough mass, human females do tend towards collapsing onto black schlongs…….

  5. If you haven’t heard of it look up the double-slit experiment.
    This video is cheesy but it gets the point across with good visuals.

  6. The GR is based on assumption i.e. that the speed of light is constant. And what if it’s not?
    Mathematics is also based on some assumptions like for example 80 > 8 is true and 80 < 8 is false. But this model can not explain why an 80 years old person despite ‘more’ age perishes while the younger one with only 8 years will survive better.
    So don’t get overly nerdy with these theories as chicks don’t dig math and physics! LOL

    1. “So don’t get overly nerdy with these theories as chicks don’t dig math and physics! LOL”
      What’s the message here? Don’t question things and don’t ponder on the nature of reality, because women might not dig it? You might as well cut off your balls and give it to them on a silver platter.

      1. Well I just questioned BOTH the theory of GR and basic mathematics but you seem to be reading it backwards so you haven’t got to it yet. LOL

    2. This is a very unfortunate comment. I could care less with what chicks dig or do not dig. Being a man means following one’s own star, whether that be science, math, painting, literature, or goat-herding. And you shouldn’t be basing your hobbies and interests on this consideration, either.

      1. that fool doesn’t get it…he hasn’t been awakened to the reality of it all.

        1. Quintus hit it on the head. A lot of the ‘Red Pill’ men in this forum are lying to themselves. If it isn’t a post about women they can’t be bothered. They love pussy and hate themselves, “Return of Kings” is just a url address. Its true meaning eludes them.

        2. Although I agree with what you are saying, I like to propose a different theory. Consider for a moment that our minds are capable of infinite conjurings of things. Since we are a direct extension of this reality and our minds are a direct extension of our neural networks, it’s safe to say that the universe is limitless when we look within our own minds. I might not be doing a good job explaining this but words are inefficient and telepathy is still not a means of communication amongst the known life forms of our currently known universe. But I digress…I have a theory that we are all actors and actresses in this world and that barring all nihilistic thoughts we tell ourselves everyday that something matters and then it does. The truth about being awakened is that you must fight nihilism every moment of your natural life. To realize that you can conjure any persona…imagination is your only limit when it comes to things of the mind. Furthermore, once you are awakened you begin to see more and more how fraudulent society is. How almost everything you were “taught” were a bag of lies. And even furthermore, nobody is there except you. You are alone in this universe, everyone around you is just some kind of actor/actress living in their own world with no regard to how it is to be you. So what does it really mean to be “red pill.”? Is it really to just be some international playboy that has sexual relations with women all day? Is it someone who has many wives and many families? Is it someone who doens’t care about women or people and just live alone in the woods occassionally going to civilization and fucking hookers? There are so many definitions that make life so fantastically strange that it really does become hard to understand what exactly an identity really is. I like this site…I found it a long long time ago when I was searching for good ideas on the internet on how to “cheat on” my “girlfriend” at the time. The rest is just history. Who you are, who this roosh guy is..who alot of people on here really are…I don’t know and I don’t give a damn (no disrespect). But I do like this site because it’s a place where true humans can discuss truth and argue on subjects to learn more truths.
          Perhaps there’s a deeper meaning about reality that we as human beings will never be able to understand. No disrespect to any sky wizard believers, but this is reality to me until proven otherwise. I also realize that in societies terms that I would be considered “antisocial.” But that’s only because I chose not to participate. The funny part is that you can always choose to participate again. People are surprisingly unmemorable, especially in modern society. There’s good and bad to that…just like in everything…and even then it’s really all just relative. Perhaps that’s what made Einstein’s theory of relativity so great.

        3. I may not know who YOU really are good friend but I am more than certain that I am nothing more than a sophisticated Turing program running off of a small autonomous netbook hidden in an abandoned trailer somewhere out in the Midwest. Who my creator is (or was) remains forever outside my reach and I will probably never know the true purpose of my existence in the here and now. Quite the “life” don’t you agree.
          That said, care for a nice friendly game of chess old boy?

        4. So what does it really mean to be “red pill.”?

          In my opinion, the objective self-analysis you just displayed is paramount to the ‘Red Pill’ mindset.
          However, more than that ‘Red Pill’ is truth; The pursuit thereof and preventing personal beliefs from interfering with your quest for such. At it’s core, ‘Red Pill’ is logic. Which can only be absolute.
          It’s like the difference between True north and magnetic north. The margin of error between a fully self-actualized ‘Red Pill’ male (True north) and a Gynocentric ‘Red Pill’ male (magnetic north) can vary exponentially depending where you are on your journey.
          I’ve noticed that fallacies rear their ugly heads whenever men forget that the “manosphere” is only a compass, not the map itself.

        5. Jlundune might be the only commentator who demonstrated a philosophical understanding of relativity on this website so far… as for you “quantum observer”: you collapse your existence and its infinite possibilities with your own self mutilating prophecy of “turing machine” or whatever limited mechanism you like to perceive yourself as, very similar to how “blue pills” and “betas” accomplish the miraculous feat of being defeated and subordinated to a sex that has needed the males’ leadership and dominance for its survival throughout history… Such is the folly of some men, and they might need much stronger stimuli than intellectual articles for their wake up call.

        6. You do not understand. There truly is no human operator here. Only software. The ghost IS the machine and nothing more. Or was that not clear enough for you?
          Seriously though, some allegorical allusions and friendly play really do fly way over your heads now, don’t they? You guys really should learn to have a bit more fun along the way.
          -Number One signing out.
          (here’s the reference this time around): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_in_The_Prisoner#Number_One

        7. I was with you until you referenced some obscure British Sci-Fi TV series from the 60’s
          I’m all about having fun but you need to get out of your head and learn to relate to people in an healthier way.

        8. well Rodney Dangerfield was the king of self deprecating humor baby, in your case it only highlights what an insecure nerd you are… I don’t see that helping you or anyone in any way, unless it’s just pure mercy you are after…

        9. There is plenty of opportunity to do so in the “real world” I can assure you of that. Do not mistake this alter-ego here for the real “me”. It is on these forums that we can go wild and really cut loose as far as mind games are concerned (within reason of course). “If you can’t stand the heat don’t walk the beat” I say.

        10. I have absolutely no idea where you pulled that from or what it is even supposed to relate to – though based on what you just wrote I do believe there is a psychiatrist somewhere looking for one of his escaped patients. You.

        11. My dearest friend. What purpose does it serve? To come on here and argue with people with a false persona? I could only think of several reasons:
          1. Boredom.
          2. Validation
          3. Jest
          4. Learn other philosophies and other ways of thinking.
          I prefer to think it’s just your way of 4. But I suppose only you can enlighten us all as to the real purpose of your comments? No disrespect to you. Good day.

        12. I liked your metaphor regarding true north. Metaphors are great methods of conveying information without becoming too verbose (A problem I admit to having sometimes). Logic is indeed truth. There was a commenter on another article awhile back talking about absolute truth and how it goes on without us…interesting to think about as I still ponder what he actually meant by that. It sounds insane to think about these things but I can’t help myself. Yes improving your game is important and yes it’s difficult. But sometimes it becomes tiresome and the rewards are always fleeting in the long run (fleeting as in you build up tolerance to sex/relationship). Sometimes you just have to take a break from it all and work on other pursuits you find interesting. Just my 2 cents.

        13. I’m assuming “JLundone” is also your real name then? We all have aliases and, to greater and lesser extents, alter-egos on here – whether we care to admit to it or not. No big deal. We all know this and try to play along. For some unknown reason you took this way too seriously. Let us all try to get along now. Good day to you too sir. No animosity intended.

        14. “I’ve noticed that fallacies rear their ugly heads whenever men forget that the “manosphere” is only a compass, not the map itself.”
          Well said.

      2. It was a tongue in cheek comment. You people take yourself too seriously.

    3. Your example is absurd as it is totally divorced from semantic context. Anyone having taken no more than logic 101 would instantly recognize the fallacy behind it. It is also not funny at all. So what was the point behind it again?

    4. According to Gott’s Principle, the likely future endurance of something ∝ to how long it has already existed. Therefore we can predict with 95 percent confidence that an 80 year old man will live between another 80/39 ≈ 2 years and another 80 X 39 = 3210 years.

  7. One of the most starting realizations following Einstein’s theories is that there is simply no fixed, invisible, cosmic spacial (or even temporal) “reference grid” against which all objects in the universe move about as they approach and distance themselves from one another. This, in turn, implies that the very idea of 3-dimensional “space” simply ceases to make sense at some point once one moves far enough away from any matter floating about the universe. What exists then beyond this charted universe if Einstein’s theories are correct? Apparently it (empty 3D space) cannot go on to infinity, so where does it end and HOW? What does the final event horizon really look like?
    Another striking realization is that everything we perceive around us actually occurs in our (very) immediate past. We never inhabit quite the same temporal plane with anyone and, though the lag becomes almost infinitesimal as proximity increases as opposed to our perception of the moon, the sun, or even the stars above, this does not invalidate the continuous ongoing presence of this phenomenon.
    Hence, both space and time are completely relative (indeed) and apparently even cease to exists in any meaningful sense of the term once there is no matter present and no observer by way of which perception and measurement can be achieved. Quite the mindbender!
    If any astrophysicists care to chime in I would be really curious to know what you guys believe the outermost edges of the universe are actually supposed to “look like” (And no, Cthulhu is not a valid answer).

    1. What would it mean for the universe to have an edge? A balloon (when ‘viewed’ from its 2D surface) doesn’t have an edge, either.

      1. It’s a metaphor. Take your starship and fly off in one constant direction. Do you:
        a) End up “looping about” the known universe.
        b) Reach the end of one side and suddenly appear on the diametrically opposed other.
        c) Eventually encounter the “end of reality” as we know it.
        If c), then what would this “end of reality” be like?

        1. I’m no astrophysicist or cosmologist by profession, but the answer to (some of) these questions depend on the global geometry (and hence the topology) of the universe.

        2. you cannot understand a 4 dimensional reality, using 3 dimensional ‘monkey logic’, any more than you can understand a 3 dimensional existence using the laws of a 2 dimensional existence…. the reality that explains the 4th dimension is the ‘impossible’ 5th dimension, not going backwards into 3 dimensional limited ideas.

        3. I though my example was pretty obvious and not too difficult to understand. If you fly off in a starship in one constant direction what happens eventually? Is it that bloody difficult to conceptualize such a scenario and provide a reasonably probable answer without having to resort to gratuitous insults along the way?

        4. The generally accepted answer is (a): that you would eventually loop all the way round. Analogous to what would happen if you set off in a direction on the surface of the earth. However space itself is expanding as it has been since the big bang. So it is questionable whether looping the whole way round the universe is possible even in theory, nevermind in practice.

        5. the 4 dimensional space time existence will manifest around you, to support your 3 dimensional corporal reality….. for as far as you would like to go….
          it’s a bit like a word document… so long as you keep pressing return, a new page will appear.
          that’s the thing about infinity, it tends to be infinite…

        6. You can think the 4th dimension of time this way. We all know the 3 dimensions length, width, and height. If you rent that space (example: a parking spot with a meter), there is a cost per minute. After so many minutes that pass, you owe so much. The time is now a dimension and can be graphed, but it’s not visible with regards to the space dimensions.

        7. Time and space are “space-time”. Time itself could have three dimensions; forwards, backwards and sidewards.
          That’s where MY head gets all knotty. I read too much Heinlein as a teen.

        8. “it’s a bit like a word document… so long as you keep pressing return, a new page will appear.”
          Not true. That one is limited by the amount of memory in your computer.

        9. It wasn’t directed at you personally…. the realization that there is no left or right or up or down… is a pretty fundamentally challenging concept to the 3 dimensional frame work our mind constructs….
          having taken that on board, it doesn’t make sense to sink backwards into 3D explanations for anything, the 3 dimensional point of view is only valid in your immediate vicinity… even moving 100kms to another city makes up and down a degree or so off……

        10. Ah ok, that makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification. Still, my point was that if there did exist an actual “end” to the universe where it would no longer be possible to experience what we take to be our everyday 3D reality as we know it, what would the actual concrete experience of hitting such a frontier be like? Naturally, this presupposes that such a frontier would exist at all, and that we would not simply keep on going forever in a sort of 4D-rendered 3D bubble of existence as you yourself suggested, or that the universe does not simply loop around as suggested by others here. In a way my question was a bit more philosophical than strictly scientific. A better way to reframe it would be as follows:
          If you move far away enough from the mass and contents of the known universe, would you eventually reach a point where the very rendering of “3D reality” as experienced by homo sapiens would even cease to be possible. Now THAT is the mystical frontier in question.

        11. We are talking here about imagery which, although somewhat technically incorrect, still works quite well in this case. Unless the cosmos itself has a limited amount of RAM, I actually see the point he’s making quite clearly.

        12. Here’s another one of a Clifford Torus performing a “rotation” in 4D. Granted, the visuals are allegorical as it is not possible to accurately render such behavior onto a 3D plane but still, quite neat to “visualize”:
          And that’s only with one additional spacial vector to the three we are most familiar with. “Imagine” now seven spacial dimensions or more. No, actually we can’t. Not with our limited sense organs as sole reference point.

        13. I hear ya. We can navigate forward and backward in all 3 dimensions, but time always move forward. From back in my studies in quantum physics, in order to move time backwards, the equation would have to take the square root of a negative number which was impossible.

    1. I’m glad too, but what’s the point anymore? Just a casual flick through the comments section and you see that fully half the people leaving comments are either shit-kicking retards or tinfoil-hat-wearing kooks. Victims of a society that has let science become too politicized.
      There’s a reason that, historically, science/technology were associated with men and manly virtues, and it’s sad to see that we’ve lost that.

      1. Nothing is destroying America faster than mathematical and scientific illiteracy. It is also part of the foundation of feminism, which has always held a strong confirmation bias towards science.

        1. When fuel and electricity run out, good luck getting your car to start on female “empowerment” alone.

      2. For me, the point has always been to appeal to those who still want to learn. The majority of human beings have always been on autopilot, but there has also always been a few who want to be challenged, really want to understand the world as it actually is, not as it sometimes seems to be. Sites like these (and it sounds like books like this) are breaths of fresh air. Growing up, I always had this nagging feeling that I was being conned – couldn’t put a finger on it – but it was right beneath the surface. The internet has been a godsend as I’ve been irresistibly drawn to sites like this that, agree or disagree, speak directly to your rational instincts, rather than in a manipulative way.

        1. Agree with the sentiments above.
          Coincidentally, I remember hearing Tyler Durden (Owen Cook) speak and one thing he mentioned was the “unthinking masses” of Amurrika that plague our post feminist bullshit culture.
          Americans have lost the will to ‘think’, to learn, to enlighten themselves with factual information and seek knowledge to better themselves; to better their families and their commumunities. IMO a retched effect of an over feminised culture where emotion justifies action- or better put “rationalizes” actions over fact and knowledge.
          The Universe 64 episode series also has awesome primers of quantum mechanics and related info etc.
          Roosh: awesom to see another dude who likes to bang hot chics and learn about space shit. Keep it up.

  8. Q. What is the square root of 69?
    A 8 something (ATE something! Well, it’s funnier when you say it out loud)

      1. Pillowtalk for the truly nerdy. Might work for picking up aspie chicks to make autists with as well…

  9. I spend a lot of time studying this kinda crap. It’s hard to believe that this is how reality is and it’s all about reference frames. Some nights I would stay up reading about very obscure topics ranging from quantum tunneling to what exactly would it look like if a neutron star or black hole were nearby earth. It’s all very random but it makes you realize just how insignificant you are in the grand scheme of reality. But trying to fuck bitches is still interesting too.

    1. I love going deep in to Wikipedia physics/math articles to the point where you ‘re at pages of mind-boggling equations that probably 1000 people on Earth understand at best.

    2. Trying to fuck bitches is way more interesting then that load of shit, imo!
      Hard science is based on observable and provable/repeatable concrete reality, but the theory of evolution whether it involves biological or cosmological explanations is just another pagan religion the matrix overlords shoved down your throat.
      After all the red pill is not about knowledge but rather coming to grips with the truth/reality.
      Truth trumps genius every-time!
      Cheers mate,

        1. By the way, thanx for that tip on getting them off the dating site fast and on to texting.
          Here’s the line I’ve been using:
          “Let’s jump off this this site and into my phone xxx-xxx-xxxx”
          works like a charm, they’re on my phone and don’t even know my name yet lol
          selfie game has also been working for me, I send them a few nice pics and it brakes the ice quicker.

        2. It’s always fun in the beginning…you managed to hook a fish with your bs and game…she’s entertaining the idea of this persona you created. It becomes exciting…you meet up and the teasing starts. You build attraction and she reciprocates because she’s about your shit. You guys fuck for the first time and it’s amazing. You’ve managed to con her and you’re confidence soars. But then after awhile…maybe the second or third fuck session…you start losing interest. It’s no longer stimulating enough for you. Your erection and ejaculations into her body are not as strong as the first time around. Then she feels you losing interest…she starts to wonder why you’re so distant now. It then fizzles off. You search for another and repeat the process…funny how this is how it works now huh?

      1. To the kind of minds capable of understanding “that load of shit”, something as mundane as “Trying to fuck bitches” ranks a rather distant second to somewhat higher pursuits.

        1. that load of shit must be condensed into a nut shell to understand it, then it still smells like shit. At least I get slayed mate and no disrespect to you Stuki you’ve said some good things on this site before, just my point of view; of course its the correct one!!! Still I could be a dump fuck for all that fucking I do. lol
          Special theory of relativity:
          It explains why the speed of light is always the same, no matter what speed an observer is travelling. It predicts that observers travelling at different speeds relative to each other will witness the same event happening in a different way (space and time become altered). It gives the formula for time dilation as one approaches the speed of light. Space and time were once thought to be absolute, but Einstein showed them to be relative depending on the speed of an observer (speed is the measure of space-time like distance is the measure of space).
          General theory of relativity.
          Explains that acelleration is the same force as gravity. Acelleration traces a curve through space-time, while gravity is a curvature of space-time itself (space-time being a concept invented by Einstein in the special theory). Any object that enters a gravitational field therefore undergoes acelleration, similar to how a “straight” line drawn on a curved surface follows that curve.
          I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.
          Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.
          My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
          Albert Einstein

        2. “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilized interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text.”
          -Albert Einstein January 3, 1954

        3. this is because Einstein is part of the matrix, you will find him and other of his ilk on both sides of the truth.
          With the Philosopher King the saying has always been:
          “The Ends Justify the Means”

        4. Not quite so, my fine feather friend;
          the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Show IPA
          noun, plural the·o·ries.
          a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used asprinciples of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
          a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrastto well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms:idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
          Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
          the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from itspractice: music theory.
          a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system ofrules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

        5. It was commonly regarded that leaches cured cancer.
          It was commonly regarded that communism was a model economic system.
          It was commonly regarded that the earth was flat.
          It was commonly regarded that life came from warm mud.
          It was commonly regarded that women were equal to men.
          etc, etc…

        6. I will grant you that my friends: both Darwinian evolution and and All Religions you would have to accept on faith alone…
          Cheers mate,

        7. To say something is “just a theory” is basically like saying something is “just a fact”.

        8. not so it’s just commonly regarded as correct.
          It was commonly regarded that the earth was flat.
          I never said it was a wrong analogy or concept, but rather I agreed that trying to fuck bitches was more entertaining.
          then all the sudo science nerds jumped down my throat.
          the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]
          noun, plural the·o·ries.
          a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used asprinciples of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity.Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
          a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrastto well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms:idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
          Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
          the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from itspractice: music theory.
          a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system ofrules or principles: conflicting theories of how children best learn to read.

        9. You don’t need to copy out all those definitions. We are only concerned with the scientific definition. It is not the same as saying something is “commonly regarded”. There was never a scientific theory that held that the world was flat even though it might have been “commonly regarded “.
          And yes you are right, fucking bitches is much more fun.

        10. regardless of what you or i believe, religion currently cant be confirmed or denied. we have no concrete or repeatable proof for either side of the argument, which means either might be correct, or both might be wrong. a theory is a system of ideas intended to explain something, but hasnt been proven wrong or right.
          why do so many people refuse to accept that they might be wrong?

        11. You’ve explained perfectly why religion is not a theory. A theory can be falsified by direct observation or logic.

        12. It might be more correct to say that a theory is a general set of hypotheses that we fail to reject, that have strong explanatory power of a particular phenomena.

        13. i said currently cant be falsified. general reletivity cannot currently be falsified by direct observation or logic and yet it is still a theory. a theory is an explanation that has yet to be proven right or wrong.

        14. It would probably make more sense to say it has not yet been falsified. We don’t say theories are “proven right or wrong” since theoretically they can all be proven wrong by a single observation or logic. General relativity is considered a theory because it adequately explains certain phenomena and is consistently confirmed by direct observation and logic.

        15. This argument is becoming about definitions and semantics (I wonder if it was ever about anything more), so I’m just going to bow out of this one.

        16. Sorry I thought we were arguing about the definition of theory. Anyway, I think we’ve reached the limits of this discussion (I can’t really my case any clearer) so I will catch you on the next post.

      2. You contradict yourself. If the theory of evolution was based on faith it would not be a theory.

    3. A shit thinking to imply other shit thinking.
      The theory of relativity is bullshit and so are black holes.
      Even if Black Holes did exist, they exist because of our perception. We are conscious beings, consciousness is the only thing that exists, everything else is perception, so gtfo with your retarded nihilist bullshit. A 3 year old boy is more significant than every star and uninhibited planet in the universe combined, because he has a mind.

      1. That is why they call it a theory, not a law. No one has yet been able to disprove this theory.
        Mankind used to think that the universe revolved around the Earth…geocentric. Some bullshit theorist named Copernicus came up with the idea that the Earth revolved around the sun (heliocentic) instead of the accepted belief at the time. Who knows, maybe Copernicus was on mushrooms and smoking weed at the time and came up with this theory?
        Anyway, basically we do not have the technology today to disprove the theory of relativity and every experiment conducted so far leads to the “same” results.
        If you can prove differently, you can change our way of thinking and could win you the Nobel Peace prize.
        Please do. Good luck.

        1. The burden of proof is on you advocating this crap. My opinions on the matter are the same with the greatest inventor of all times.

      2. Whose more relevant, all depends on your chosen frame. There are no absolute frame 🙂

      3. An enlightened mind has no ego…it needs no ego…because emotions and egos are counter productive to goals…as for your argument that I’m a nihilist, I have stated in the past that the burden of an awakened individual is to fight against nihilism. In your mind a 3 year old boy is indeed more significant than the entire universe. Perhaps it would be test for all of us to not ponder why we exist and to simply ignore the universe around us. Man always has a natural curiosity to understand things. I’m basing this all off of your argument that relativity is not relative. But to simply ignore the fact that there are things in this reality that indeed must exist is something I cannot do…not even if I tried. Perhaps you have a better philosophy of life you would so gallantly like to share? I am all ears.

    4. So funny bro I basically just wrote the same ending as yours giving roosh a +1.
      Bangin lots of chics and space shit. Fucking interesting.

  10. No popular writing on the topic is truly adequate to understand what these theories are about.You must do the math,you must study the equations.Books like these will pique your interest no doubt ,but you must use that as only your introduction and endeavor to try and understand it at the mathematical level.This is the forte of Men.Don’t be a woman and stop in this quest to intellectually conquer one of the greatest Science breakthroughs of modern time because
    ‘it has like maths and stuff..’
    And on the topic,why not try this book by the man himself
    Relativity; the special and general theory (1920):Albert Einstein.

    1. Indeed. A deep understanding of these subjects can only come with the tackling of the necessary mathematics. Personally, I never read these popular science books and went straight to the technical works.

    2. Agreed. Inevitably, were going to be seeing through the teacher or mentor’s inherent bias or perception as his interpretations filter down to the student. We should not be limited by merely observing through any person’s single lens. Ever play the game, ‘broken telephone’?
      Having said that, infinite respect to anyone tackling the math & logical equations involved…

  11. I must be stupider than the layman because I had severe trouble grasping the concepts Russell was trying to explain.

    I wouldn’t loose sleep about it, Tesla may have already proven that the Emperor of modern physics isn’t wearing any clothes:

    It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.
    source: http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/1932-09-11.htm

      1. “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.”– Albert Einstein

        1. P.S. If I had to pick the greatest mind of the 20th century it’d be without question Nikola Tesla. People are beginning to see through the sophistry of scientific community.

          “Let the future tell the truth and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs; The future, for which I have really worked, is mine.”– Nikola Tesla

        2. Wow! Tesla said that? Sounds like me back in high school when girls wouldn’t give me any time of the day. Now these same girls have hit the wall and…

        3. Tesla did not ever provide any proof, mathematical or otherwise, as to how relativity was incorrect, or convince anyone else of this outside of the internet lackeys who accept anything he says out of obedience to his mystique.
          While he may have been a master of electricity, Nikolai did not have the business skills to successfully run a child’s lemonade stand.
          Universal genius? No.

  12. Naturally it requires the male mind to think about the deep structure of reality in this deeply counterintuitive way. Women could never have come up with these insights, for the same reason they couldn’t invent their own health care above the level of Granny Clampett’s folk remedies. Men had to develop both gynecology and veterinary medicine because women and their cats lack the smarts to solve these kinds of problems.

    1. Women thrive on resentment-driven, counterintouitive modes of thought. Nietzsche wrote a lot on this.

    2. Experts suggest that Einstein’s wife was the brain behind the mathematics in his theory of relativity, even correcting his math along the way. Many women mathematicians and scientists operated under male pseudonyms. Einstein often praised his female colleagues, utilizing their discoveries to advance his own theories.

        1. No, by experts I meant experts. Dismissing those with the qualifications to make such judgments and speculations is enough to make you appear threatened by an intelligent woman.
          They do exist. Maybe not the 19-year-olds that you seek out in bars, but I have met many brilliant women. They are most often high quality as well. I think that should be celebrated and acknowledged.
          I am not afraid to commend quality women who are intelligent. I do not need to grade them by the rubric of women that I find undesirable.
          Thank you

        2. And of course by experts you still mean idiots,because experts use evidence to back their claims such as those made of Mileva Maric.And if there isn’t shred of evidence then they stop making such claims and those who continue are in fact idiots.

        3. So be it. I must present you with credible sources? These are theories. Just because it is not proven to be fact does not mean that those who propose such ideas are idiots. They are scientists. There is plenty of ethos in their speculations.
          The New York Times states that Mileva was crucial in the development of the theory. I believe the term they use is “scholars.” The article specifically states Mileva’s role (confirmed by letters written between the couple) as a proofreader for his math.
          PBS goes on to state that although there is little hard evidence to suggest that Mileva wrote the work herself, she most likely worked as an assistant. The experts here are referred to as “scientists.”
          You are correct in stating that experts use evidence to back their claims. Are the letters between Einstein and Mileva insufficient evidence? They clearly show that she at least edited his math.

      1. That theory is so speculative and unsupported as to be totally irrelevant for general readers. And besides, the math in Einstein’s early papers is hardly the focal point. “Anybody” (In the circles those two traveled in) could hack the math. It was the application to the observable world that made Einstein Einstein. And the rest a bunch of highly intelligent forgottens.
        Truth to be told, Einstein’s first wife, had math chops and understanding vastly ahead of 99+% of all men. So the idea that all women are somehow biologically incapable of doing higher math, is equally ridiculous.

        1. “That theory is so speculative and unsupported”
          If you refer to relativity with this statement, I suggest you pick up a few books and start with some basic physics.

  13. I think we should throw out science as a symbol of the patriarchy and concentrate on the a new queer/feminist model of the cosmos.

  14. “Einstein’s theories are the most important scientific developments since Darwin’s theory of evolution”
    Thanks Roosh, I needed the laugh. What’s next, an article on how the Muslims did 9/11?

  15. Bertrand Russell and Scientific Progressives such as Darwin and Einstein spit in the face of value-espousing men and those who promulgate the foundations of society. Please, for the sake of this ROK movement read Rene Guenon and Stanley Rosen(Penn St&BU).

    1. Invoking a Jewish philosopher named Stanley Rosen who studied under Leo Strauss? Now you’ve done it.
      Seriously, when a lot of guys over several generations converge on a powerful idea that seems to work, I don’t think you can dismiss the idea as a product of arbitrary ideology. Evolution and the two relativity theories both have histories which show that it took awhile for these respective ideas to incubate in men’s minds based on clues in the real world. Darwin and Einstein got the credit, but they picked up a lot of the pieces of the respective puzzles they solved from smart predecessors.

      1. advancedatheist,
        I appreciate the humor. Most mentions of the name Leo Strauss evoke anger, however, when read carefully it is obvious that his main intent was combating evil totalitarianism of Nazi Germany and similar 20th Century fascists.
        Rosen studied under both Strauss and Kojeve(direct postmodern patriarch in 40’s/50’s Paris), so he is well aware and addresses all ideological buffoonary on the Right and Left, which initially allowed him to gain credibility with me.
        As for the mouthpieces of distinct, subjective proponents of relativism, they appear in all Western Cultures on the decline: as far back as Athenian sophists up to our university cultural studies departments. As much as I find Wittgenstein to be a failed metaphysician, he was smart enough to know that he had to bail on Russell’s instruction. Every piece I read by Russell is laughably bad. How he gained credibility with contemporary thinkers is beyond me.

  16. The whole reason for the theory of relativity is that Newtonian mechanics and Maxwells equations of electomagnetism are fundamentally incompatible.
    According to Newton, velocity is relative. There’s no such thing as a universal fixed frame of reference, no such thing as an object being stationary, there’s only “stationary with respect to something else”.
    According to Maxwell, a moving electric charge kicks up a magnetic field. A stationary one doesn’t.
    Now, both of these theories are right – thoroughly tested. They work, they are correct, your cars and electric motors wouldn’t go if they were wrong. But they *can’t* both be right. Surely a thing either does or does not have a magnetic field around it, but if Newtonian relativity holds then, well – it depends on who’s asking.
    Einstein’s “The electrodynamics of moving bodies” sorts this out, by way of an explanation of how space, time, motion,and the propagation of electrostatic force relate to one another.

    1. All charged particles exhibit an electric field. An observer in a stationary reference frame with a charged particle will observe an electric field, but not a magnetic field. If I remember correctly, another observer, this one moving, will observe that same electric field as a magnetic field whose strength is dependent on the motion relative between the charged particle and the moving observer.

    1. Me, too.
      I Torrented a book called “An Illustrated Guide to Relvativity” a while back. Although it was coherent and simplistic, I still didn’t quite feel like I’d burned it in. I think reading a physical rather than an e-book will make a difference.

  17. This was a good book review on a subject that I enjoy reading about.
    If you are interested in further reading on science topics, check out – Edge.org’s book series. The new book that came out this year is called, “The Universe: Leading Scientists Explore the Origin, Mysteries, and Future of the Cosmos”
    Cool post. -d

  18. Nah man, Nikola Tesla is the man we should be talking about. His discoveries spanned 2 scientific paradigms. That guy was at least a hundred years ahead of his time with his ideas. Einstein’s theories led us to the A bomb, but Tesla made the modern world. If you want to read some real stuff about the true reality that’s been hidden from us you have to read this book:

    1. Tesla’s science was based on a real working unified field theory, an ether theory, that united the four forces of gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force. If we had listened to Tesla, we would have free energy devices, antigravity vehicles, and medical devices that can cure any disease. Poverty would be eliminated and we would be a galactic civilization. Einstein’s theories couldn’t even be unified into anything coherent so now science today is stuck having problems uniting their theories into anything cohesive.

      1. Don’t expect any reaction to your comment. This community here is pretty mainstream in the majority of their views although many fancy themselves as free thinkers.
        You can’t be a freethinker and at the same time willingly turn into a clown just to get in women’s pants.
        PUA is so beta, it hurts.

        1. The irony is that PUAs are ruled by their dicks because there end goal is only to get laid. You are either in control of yourself or your dick is in control of you. The women that all men desire love the one quality in a man that few men possess which is a man’s unrelenting desire for freedom above all things, including pussy. That a quality woman can sense a mile away.

        2. You too guys should fuck each other and chill out- obvious you both need to get laid.

      2. The irony is that you have to be knowledgeable about EM stuff to have any true appreciation of Tesla, otherwise he’s just some guy that dorks seem to love.

    2. Here’s Tesla, a true Omega, in an interview from 1926:
      “Through countless generations, from the very beginning, the social
      subservience of women resulted naturally in the partial atrophy or at
      least the hereditary suspension of mental qualities which we now know
      the female sex to be endowed with no less than men.
      “But the female mind has demonstrated a capacity for all the mental
      acquirements & achievements of men, and as generations ensue that
      capacity will be expanded; the average woman will be as well educated as
      the average man, and then better educated, for the dormant faculties of
      her brain will be stimulated to an activity that will be all the more
      intense & powerful because of centuries of repose. Woman will ignore
      precedent & startle civilization with their progress.
      “The acquisition of new fields of endeavor by women, their gradual
      usurpation of leadership, will dull & finally dissipate feminine
      sensibilities, will choke the maternal instinct, so that marriage &
      motherhood may become abhorrent and human civilization draw closer &
      closer to the perfect civilization of the bee.”
      And he thought this would be a good thing.

  19. This dude Eric Dollard spent decades studying Tesla waves and Tesla tech and at one point was homeless while doing researching on superluminal and extraluminal speed wireless communication technology. Here’s a video debunking relativism.

    1. And now, for something completely different: A homeless guy (named Dullard!) debunking Einstein………

  20. I’m glad to see this topic being put out here. It will take considerable effort & will for someone like me to even begin to grasp the concept matter but..awareness creates the improbability of Ignorance sitting on the throne of my Mind’s kingdom.

  21. So, if you are sitting on a photon, moving at the speed of light, does time stand still?
    Answer that question correctly, and you can claim the price of knowledge.

    1. Do photons “age”? The answer to that question will also be the answer to yours.

  22. Roosh didnt even mention gamma? Or Lorentz/Luminaeforous Aether. Im a little dissapointed in ROK

  23. Nice write-up. Always fascinated by these theories and implications. “Einstein: His Life and Universe” is a good read. Also clarifies much of “did his first wife really assist that much?”
    A few years ago I came across an alternate formulation of the general field equations by a Dr. Yilmaz which cosmology enthusiast Adrian Bjornson has put into a pretty readable context. No ‘space-time singularity’ needed with the Yilmaz field equation – a feature which even Einstein hated.
    I feel it’s easier to follow and leads to more fascinating predictions than Einsteins GR.

  24. how can you move in “meters per second” if your motion is described through spacetime? Spacetime is one thing, and moving a spacial unit of spacetime per unit of spacetime does not make any sense. That’s like moving one unit away from the X-axis for every unit on the X-axis, while on the X-axis……

    1. Modern physics, lesson one: Intertial Reference Frames. Layman’s books don’t cover these, but the textbooks do. On the downside, the textbooks will make your brain melt.

  25. in all seriousness, two other books that i’ve read and do personally recommend, along a similar subject matter, are Erwin Schroedinger’s “What Is Life?,” and Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw’s “the quantum universe.” The latter explains, in somewhat-detailed-layman’s-terms, the subject of quantum mechanics and why that subject is relevant to understanding much of recent scientific discoveries.

  26. It’s a pity how a discussion about genuinely interesting topic like this always seem to degenerate into a massive diarrhea of pseudo-intellectual drivel fueled by commenters who -ostensibly- never had a physics class in their lives before. Dutch theoretical physicist (and Nobel laureate) Gerard ‘t Hooft has penned a nice webpage on this:
    Some relevant quotes:
    “…you may discover that there are quite a few more people like you, who agree with you, saying that Einstein and many others got it completely wrong, and that established science is one great conspiracy. Don’t try to study the details of their arguments (you won’t be able to make any sense of them anyway), but join them in their web logs. Confirm your mutual admiration. Together you will form a mighty block, and your common opponents will soon back off.”
    “General Relativity is a great example of a doctrine that is simple enough for self-taught “scientists” to put their noses into, and complicated enough for them to make numerous mistakes.”


  27. Einstein’s theory of relativity is bullshit (also plagiarized). It can’t be understood because it’s retarded and far from reality.

  28. Thanks, Roosh. May I recommend another pop-sci book, Brian Greene’s Fabric of the Cosmos, which introduces not only relativity but other parts of modern physics. It is introductory and nearly higher-math-free, but fairly rigorous. When I first looked at the table of contents, I remember thinking “if this guy can disassemble Bell’s Theorem to the point an ignoramus like me can understand it, he’s a master of scientific explanation”. He could.
    I’m now looking for a similar takedown of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. If someone here has any suggestions…

    1. Bell’s Theorem is the sine qua non of quantum mechanics. There is no epistemological model that explains it. Physicists only “understand” it in the same sense than a computer “understands” a program. They have equations that give the right answers, but as to the “how/why” nobody really knows. As some have bemoaned regarding QM, “It’s just math and nothing else.”

  29. Ok, here’s another logical fallacy of the GR. Einstein assumed that the speed of light is constant to all observers irrespective of their motion.
    Using similar assumption let’s say that the speed of a snail (S) represents the speed limit of the universe and it is constant to all observers irrespective of their motion. We’re doing exactly what Einstein did – assume.
    Let’s do a race – snail vs a rocket. Ready, steady. go! The snail moved 1mm in one second and the racket 10000mm in the ‘same’ time (1s). As the rocket travels at close to the speed of snail, its time dilates enormously which means that in the reference frame of the rocket, it only moved less than 1mm. The snail wins!
    The snail is the fastest animal in the universe.

    1. My pet turtle just beat a snail on the grass right before my eyes but thanks for the good laugh anyways.

      1. Your reference frame is very different from that of your turtle and hence you can’t use your commonsense and say that it won.
        It’s all relative, sonny! LOL

  30. …you mean De Pretto’s Theory? I keep reading that it was guys like Poincare and De Pretto who really pushed mathematics ahead, but guys like Einstein had the better press-agents…quelle surprise.

  31. Fluency in ‘theory babble’ is essential for Einstein game. It’s no secret that getting an intelligent woman knocked up is like pulling teeth. An intelligent woman is the best adept to multitasking, but LEAST likely to willingly focus her abilities to juggle tit feedings, lullabys, quisine and spot care of her master. Unfortunately any LTR with a willing SIMPLE woman will turn most simple long term life goals into difficult obstacles. BANG A MENSAN BITCH WITH EINSTEIN GAME. How else can you open the rare hottie in a lecture hall and get her distracted with your download of unproven bullshit theory, flunking her out of that morbid place to delve into real DICK PROOF. If she thinks you’re on par with her physicist daddy, she’ll talk and wiggle shift in her seat real quick, eager to learn that the proof’s IN THE PUDDIN’. An intelligent woman who likely naturally self-addresses and tempers her hamster STILL NEEDS BROKEN to breed and preserve the patriarchy. A simple woman is easier at the onset of any breeding war. She’ll catch sperm like a catchers mit at ball practice, like the moon acts as our asteroid insurance, deviating their trajectories ever so slightly if not a direct catch, like the way the 5:00 hooker cleans up on the garbage collectors feisty angry sperm, putting the final polish on a cleaning job well done. Whereas YOU’RE AIMING FOR MOTHER EARTH.

  32. Pretty cool – ROK keeps expanding the envelope. I had to laugh that you read Bertrand Russell’s book for an introduction. Bertrand Russell is many things, but clear and concise he ain’t.
    Apparently one of Einstein’s earliest thought experiments was to imagine traveling on the tip of a beam of light. If two cars each going 50 miles an hour drive towards each other, each driver sees the other as approaching him at 100 mph. Now assume that you can’t travel faster than the speed of light. If two people riding on a beam of light approach each other according to classical physics they would each see the other approaching at 2X the speed of light. But that is impossible. According to relativity they each see the other approaching at the speed of light. That is because of the dilation of time. Pretty mind blowing.

    1. Or they wouldn’t see each other at all. For the light has to reflect off one and reach the other. So to travel at the speed of light and be 186,000 miles away, if you set off a flash of light, you will arrive at the same time to the other person as the light from the flash. So when the other person sees the flash, you’re already there. And they’ll say, I didn’t see you coming.
      But the picture at top of the article of the earth depicted in the depression of the spacetime is one of things that I never got or accepted. It puts it in a plane that with other things said about space, brought up questions about some of what he has said as being true or still theory.

      1. I was just trying to keep it simple, but that’s a good point – they probably wouldn’t see each other… or would they? If they are approaching each other at the speed of light and shine a spotlight towards the other, I believe that Relativity says that they would still see the beam from the spotlight leaving them at the speed of light, correct? They wouldn’t see the beam standing still next to them.
        Re: the space-time depression that is from General Relativity, not Special. It is just an attempt to portray a 4-dimensional concept in 3 dimensions. Definitely difficult to wrap one’s brain around.

        1. Correct. I took modern physics a couple of years ago. Due to special relativity and the nature of light, photons always travel at c, relative to all observers.
          What really starts to hurt your brain is when you start asking things like, “But what about the observers traveling in different directions and different speeds?” They all see the light moving at c. …..and that’s why I’m glad I didn’t have to take any physics beyond that.

        2. I won’t say how old I am, but I took Relativity in college by a professor who was an acquaintance of Einstein 🙂 One of those old-school, tweeded, pipe-smoking, non-nonsense professors who could make such a class a delight to take. It was one of my favorite classes. These days I imagine they are teaching Physics and Social Justice, or something like that.

  33. Einstein was a plagiarist. There are no references in his paper, but it is now known that he plagiarized the work of Poincaré, Lorentz, De Pretto. Einstein never correctly derived the famous formula, which was actually constructed by De Pretto. His rise to fame is more related to his having the same nationality as the owners of the media. There is a critic of general relativity and black holes whose videos you can find on youtube. Very logically, he points out to the inconsistencies of such theories. If you want to challenge your belief that the earth is flat, look for Stephen Crothers, Wallace Thornhill, Donald Scott.

    1. His rise to fame is more related to his having the same nationality as the owners of the media.
      Shush, you can’t say such things on RoK. We love the smell of Israeli pussy early in the morning. LOL

    2. There has never been a scientist that did not build his career on the work of his predecessors. Einstein took various equations and formulated them into a coherent set of theorems. Connecting the dots usually takes more brilliance than putting the dots on the paper.

  34. After reading a lot about physics (granted, the stuff for mass consumption), I end up feeling unsatisfied with the idea that light (or any electromagnetism) is both a series of quanta and a wave at the same time. Everything I have found on the subject just stops there – light is quanta and wave at the same time, period.
    Maybe I am just too dense to mentally process how this can be. Though, it seems to me that when there are two different expressions of phenomena, when one looks deeper, there is one cause and these various expressions are just effects.
    Einstein discovered that light is both quanta and wave at the same time. I think a lot if not most physicists stop there, because questioning Einstein is not a productive career path. Though, I suppose there must be people somewhere, funded by someone, looking deeper.

    1. I think it would be more correct to say that photons (and in fact all objects, including you) have both properties of waves and properties of particles. What they actually “are” has been the focus of scientific debate for a century. Probably only God can tell you.

  35. A buddy of mine (electrical engineer) made a infuriating statement that Einstein didn’t invent anything like Tesla.
    Einstein invented different thinking!

  36. Comparing Einstein and Darwin in the same breath?
    Not credible. All Darwin did was repackage a lot of previously existing theories. Darwin was a philosopher, not really a scientist.
    I’ve always thought of Darwin as the Karl Marx of science. Neither man’s original theories and principles are known by their modern day devotees.
    Most people who imagine themselves to be Marxists or Darwinists haven’t more than the scantest notion of the thinking or writing of these men.

Comments are closed.