The Secrets of Quantum Physics - Einstein's Nightmare has been added as a related post - related requested by eric3579.

Here's part 1:
http://videosift.com/video/The-Secrets-of-Quantum-Physics-Einsteins-Nightmare

Exactly. He got all the girls. Watch him and learn.

If this arbitrary value comes out more than 2 Einstein was wrong. And the answer is.... 2.5 woohoooo! Anything practical on the horizon?

Also strings + entanglement = Flying Spaghetti Monster confirmed.

Your video, The Secrets of Quantum Physics - Einstein's Nightmare, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

We do see lensing, so we do know. It's also true that black hole lensing can be recreated with an actual lense setup if you really wanted, so we're not exactly talking about the mysterious here.

The thing with physics in games is that all you have to do is make sure you program the physical laws correctly - mass and light respond to gravity, etc. - and it'll look how it should look..

Wiki has a bunch of examples. Einstein's cross is great.

That's a good point. A "wall" could also turn out to be the interior of a hole. Like Einstein said, it's all relative.

General Relativity : Einstein vs. Newton

He didn't, at least not according to "Einstein: His Life and Universe." where he is reported to have said that his happiest thought was that Gravity and Acceleration are equivalent. It was a breakthrough for him to realize that a man in a falling elevator wouldn't feel the force of gravity, because they are the same thing.

Wait, I want to know what happens!

Why did Einstein say the ball and feather weren't accelerating toward earth?

My doctorate is in psychology -- a social science, which includes coursework in epistemology. I am also the executive director of a peer reviewed psychology Journal which incorporates quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method methodologies.

If science was driven purely by consensus, than the upending of long-held scientific understanding (as achieved by the likes of Galileo, or Darwin, or Einstein -- who, incidentally, upended some theories about how something as "self-evident" as gravity works -- in more notable ways and by lesser known scientists in still significant ways) would never come about. Science is not practiced by "votes," whereby the majority determines what theories are most accurate. Rather, evidence (whether it be rationally deduced, rationally induced, empirically demonstrated, or hermeneutically interpreted) serves as the basis for scientific progress, whether the majority of scientists agree with it or not.

(Climate change, itself, is rationally deduced, since empirical models of the earth are so difficult if not impossible to design, let alone run controlled trials.)

You are actually going a long way to make my point that those who are "believers" in climate change are missing the value and indeed necessity for ongoing skepticism in the scientific literature (rather than the name-calling and vilification that constitutes much of the "OMG! Climate Change!" discourse of late). That point, along with illuminating some of the citations I linked to above, is the purpose of my comment -- and not to argue (or name-call or "debate" as many on the sift waste their time doing).

I do concur that the manner in which I posted the links may not have been "fair," and so I apologize for that, but the content of the links themselves raise significant questions as to the unilateral "belief" in "OMG! [andropogenic] Climate Change!" I encourage anyone who is seriously interested in the scientific basis for skepticism around such a belief, to consider reviewing the literature cited in those links before arriving at an incontrovertible conclusion.

But in light of your request for a single link, I recommend you visit the NPCC's website and perhaps attend, specifically, to their literature about temperature changes (PDF), which I believe serve as valid refutations of the literature upon which the climate change "believers" tend to base their adrenal-freakouts.

NdGT and Bill Nye are both far better people than Newton was, but

• Calculus
• Gravity
• Newtonian motion

I don't feel gravity is ever a good comparison because gravity always points out the opposite of anyone trying to say something is settled.

I'm sure you know this, but for those that don't.

When the Newtonian model of gravity was postulated it answered some unexplained phenomena. Even though it was mainly right, it wasn't totally right.

Along comes Einstein and he proposes a couple of neat new hypothesis that when verified answered some of the shortcomings people had found after a while in Newton's hypothesis.

We moved a little closer to the truth.

At this point in time we haven't actually observed a graviton. It remains elusive. And more to the point, our model (theory if you like) of gravity may change and things like the graviton may not exist at all.

In summary, science points to what is the most correct explanation of what we observe at a given point in time. It is rarely settled and almost never "right" or "true", just "more right" or "more true" than what has passed before.

Ya know what, @Trancecoach is right. I could rebut all your points, but you've taken an ideological position that is unsupported by evidence, so clearly this is a waste of my time.

You probably genuinely believe what you've written, despite it being obvious nonsense.

One thing I can't let slide is your last little fantasy about the lone scientist against the establishment. That hasn't been true for a long time, and even then, it was generally religion or business (cf. Edison and Tesla) and not scientific consensus that impeded progress. Most major advances in science have come about by people working together, sharing results and bouncing ideas off each other. In fact, most of the time, the people we credit with great ideas (Newton, Einstein, etc) were only a step ahead of other scientists working toward the same ideas.

Yes, evidence trumps consensus, but scientists are not idiots, and there isn't some lone genius who has understood climate change when everyone else hasn't. If there was, the scientific community would recognise it.

There simply isn't any evidence to support your position that isn't easily dismissed in a few paragraphs. Read http://skepticalscience.com

The whole climate change denial (and no, I won't dignify it by calling it scepticism, that's an insult to scepticism) is marketing.

So I'll leave you, trance and the republicans in your little fantasy world where scientists and environmental campaigners have engaged in a massively profitable (please explain how, still not clear on this one) scheme to fuck up the world economy (because??? reasons, I guess) and the heroic oil companies are going to rescue us from a fate worse than a clean planet.

Meanwhile, I, the scientific community and the other humans that don't believe the earth is flat will accept the reality of climate change and move on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#Science_and_the_scientific_method

"In science, Occam's Razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8][9] In physics, parsimony was an important heuristic in the formulation of special relativity by Albert Einstein,[36][37] the development and application of the principle of least action by Pierre Louis Maupertuis and Leonhard Euler,[38] and the development of quantum mechanics by Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg and Louis de Broglie.[9][39] In chemistry, Occam's Razor is often an important heuristic when developing a model of a reaction mechanism.[40][41]"

You are pointing the finger and saying I am ignorant yet you dismiss Occams razor in ignorance of its application to the scientific method. According to the principle of parsimony I do have an argument but it appears you can't be bothered to consider what I am saying. This is an intellectual laziness which seems to typify our culture today. It is an apathetic reasoning process that sees everything through the lens of stereotypes and generalities. If I am wrong about that I will happily admit it, and you still have ample opportunity to establish otherwise.

I cant salute Snowden as much as he deserves it. A true hero, but some people are still too stupid to see it, even when they get the facts into the face with a frying pan.
Einstein was right about stupidity.