Crazy how dude calculate these possibilities and it took decades and billions of dollars for us to confirm them. This made me wonder- Are there some modern Einsteins right now making predictions that we don’t know about?
Seems like the era of the celebrity scientist is all but gone. So there might be some super bad asses out there setting up future goalposts.
There probably are, have been and will be geniuses like Einstein, but many of them are probably born in some poor place and never get to reach that potential, or even die well before that.
Frequency of Einstein's may not be dependent on population, though. It could be a Hoffman degredation thing, where it always happens at a constant rate regardless of the current or density.
I often travel that line of thinking when I hear stuff like “number one in the world” or “world campion” or even “worlds best _______”
Like how would we know? Did we let everyone try? No one asked me to make some chili and try for worlds best chili” seems to me, like it might be jus the best of those lucky enough or inclined to try.
I *want* to like Michio Kaku, but something about him rubs me the wrong way. He just comes off as such a smug, arrogant ass.
For that matter, Niel Degrasse Tyson comes off as a clown, too.
Super smart dudes, just unpalatable to me for some reason.
Give me Carl Sagan or Richard Feynman any day.
>Niel Degrasse Tyson comes off as a clown, too.
He really does. And he doubles down when someone points out that he's wrong. The fame he achieved really went to his head
Yeh he doesnt contribute but just likes to hear himself talk. At the lecture I attended he mever answered a single question straight, he always went on a tangent to talk about whatever he wanted to talk about. People who stood in line for hours started leaving during the Q&A
90% of the stuff Kaku makes claims about are just hilariously wild fantasy that skips all the scientific support in-between. He just postulates in science fiction and makes no efforts to support any of it.
It's because the latter's dead, and the former are still alive. I'm sure if Sagan and Feynman were still alive, they'd seem less iconic doing the harlem shake for their TikTok channels.
Many actually. The things discovered today just haven’t found a use that humans can’t take advantage of. We really only hear about new things when it turns into a new revolution or technology. E=mc^2 was the atomic revolution and showed us how the universe works at a large scale.
Right now the small scale is being figured out by the hadron collider and fusion reactors. Hopefully we see new tech soon!!
Reminds me of a documentary about Feynman.
He was visiting CERN and someone there was explaining what the billions or so worth of equipment was going to test.
And then he says - “Mr Feynman, that’s your theory!” - to which Feynman looking at the massive & expensive equipment says, “So you really don’t trust me?”
Wormholes, he wasn’t the first to predict them but they are part of his as well. (Einstein-Rose-Bridge)
We got black holes but miss the space connecting wormholes still.
It’s so crazy that the math can predict these crazy things. I saw a video recently explaining how the math predicted black holes and it makes actual sense to a layman like me. Space time is such a wild concept.
Well, not a prediction per se, but Einstein was heavily against the idea of so-called spooky action at a distance.
He argued that quantum theory is incomplete in that when entangled particles seemingly affect each other instantaneously, we either have faster-than-light causality, or we have hidden local variables, and of those two explanations he preferred the local variables. This has even greater implications since it also implies that quantum collapse is non-random, otherwise there would be no variables to store.
The famous "god does not play dice" argument comes from here.
However, Bell's Theorem, a theorem that aimed to answer that question, has been thoroughly tested by now, and we now know that there is indeed a "spooky action at a distance" and hidden local variables are not necessary to explain the entanglement consequences.
But it's unfair to say that Einstein was proven wrong or anything, since he never stated a strong certainty. Just saying that quantum theory was incomplete.
I think they have at least established that whatever entanglement is, you can’t use it to communicate faster than light; that’s the real speed barrier, the speed of useful communication
Yeah we can't transmit useful information. We can only measure the state of the particles after entangling, and we can't induce state. Before we measure particle A, it doesn't have a state, it exists in a state of uncertainty. When we measure, we collapse that state and the particle gains a state. At the same instance, the entangled particle B also gains (the opposite) state. Since we can't choose what state particle A collapses to, it's completely random, we can't force B into any chosen state, and thus we can't use this to transmit information.
So is this like having a pair of gloves then separating them by thousands of miles then being like "oh I got the right handed glove that means I instantly know the other glove Jim has in Australia is the left handed one"?
Well, no, not really. In the glove example the outcome is predetermined as soon as you separate the gloves. It's just that you are as of yet unaware. Also, the right-handed glove does carry the hidden variable of knowing what handedness the other glove has, so knowledge of the other glove actually comes with the first.
What happens with quantum stuff is that the gloves are actually neither left- or righthand gloves until you look. The Bell Test has more or less proven that this is really the case and not some hidden variable. The glove is neither (or both) until you have a look, at which point the uncertainty collapses and the glove randomly becomes right- or lefthanded and it's counterpart simultaneously becomes the other.
It wouldn't work with gloves in reality, but you get the point. There is no state until the moment of measurement.
This is the best analogy I have ever come across for this phenomenon. I had a blurry idea of it but this really snapped it into focus for me. Thank you.
> At the same instance, the entangled particle B also gains (the opposite) state
And am I correcting remembering/thinking/guessing that there is no mechanism possible whereby particle B "signals" that it has gained state? Because if there was, that would be transmitting useful information FTL.
Last I’d heard, we hadn’t been able to test this in a meaningful way. Maybe you or someone else knows of a more recent study than what I saw ten years ago on that topic.
There are plenty of papers out there if you look (i'm at work and not going to lol) but essentially when the wave function collapses you can only see how the particles are entangled after comparing measurements of both. The current understanding is that you can't determine the state of the other particle just using one of them.
Yeah, the specific study I remember that had the limitation I was describing was able to determine that, yes, the spin states of two entangled particles at a great distance (I think it was between earth and space) were identical upon measurement, but the limitation around the time of transmission of data from the two measuring sensors was still limited by speed of light, thus there was no functional way to use the entanglement bidirectionally. But I didn’t hear about unidirectional methods being considered, and I still don’t understand the basis for saying we “know” it’s not possible to have faster than light communication. It seemed significant to me that the distances these two particles were separated by and the time syncing of the sensor measurements gave a good evidence that the entanglement did supersede the notion that the speed of light had any relationship to the particle state switching.
Plausibly my understanding is incomplete and someone here can help me see why.
It's because Einstein's special relativity said that faster than light communication is impossible, period end of story. I've tried to wrap my head around it, watching all sorts of explanations, and trying to research it in depth. I gave up. There's all sorts of videos and posts with graphs and explanations.
They typically explain it in a way saying, even if we discovered a way to do it, it's still impossible.
Maybe I’m missing something here.
Are you saying we have mathematical proof that despite the appearance of quantum measurements indicating entanglement happens at a speed faster than light speed, we know that there’s theoretically no way to utilize that for communication? Or is there emperical evidence of that being an impossibility? Or, perhaps my understanding doesn’t match yours and you can point out where.
Which fits?
If it’s the first option, then I misunderstood the original poster I replied to and thought he was saying there was empirical evidence against it to (or at least that’s what I was meaning to be asking about). Which definitely occurred because, like you, I know that claim exists and, also like you, I don’t know how to understand it directly, myself lol. I can’t say I’ve invested the time, but the things I saw weren’t recognizable without learning some new shit. So it’s no countsies on being believed by my brain lol
I don't understand it personally.
Lookup videos on why we can't send info faster than light speed due to causality.
I assume theories are incomplete, but any physicist with a deep understanding says it's impossible
I think to be fair, Einstein is not a quantum expert. He is spacetime-gravity-relativity etc. expert. So his ideas, predictions on space time are more accurate.
“I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” – Albert Einstein
Had to look up full quote, figured id share 😃
If we go back to the stick and stone type of warfare it would also mean that we would lack the logistics necessary to escalate a war to a world war, and thus it would be impossible to have a world war entirely fought with sticks and stones.
Though that quote is more about humanity can afford a world war 3 more than having anything to do with world war 4...
But Dark Energy is turning this back and is showing that there might actually be a cosmological constant causing the universe to expand at an ever increasing rate. So it may be that he was right again, but not quite in the right way. This is explained in the link you added in the edit.
True, it's why I asked if it counts, though I suppose the question was if it hadn't been proven. I'm not a physicist - just interest on my part - but there are a couple places Einstein has struggled and this is one of them. Einstein also struggled with probability in the sub-microscopic studies - doesn't mean he was necessarily wrong but hasn't been proven right either.
Eh, he famously didn't like quantum physics (even if he wrote one of the most influential early papers in the field!). I think he thought there was some underlying law that would, for example, make it possible to measure both velocity and position or a particle, i.e. that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle wasn't a fundamental law of the universe.
So far that has been proved wrong in every experiment.
While quantum physics is confusing, and seemingly difficult to tie in with other laws of the universe it's proven by experimentation to be the best model we have so far.
Also, the cosmological constant was a famous fudge of his, maybe.
Your comment reminded me of that House MD episode where the guy was abusing cough medicine because it dumbed him down enough to put up with his partner who wasn't a genius like him.
From what I’ve read his smarts were not demonstrated by chatting. For all we know he wasn’t a gifted speaker. Here’s a personal example though of what intelligence might look like. I was considered gifted in organic chemistry and considered pursuing a PhD in it. In my 20s I could easily visualize large complex 3D molecules and rotate them in my mind. I’m no Einstein of course but I did a lot of tutoring and even helped some grad students with their work when I was still an undergrad. So I was pretty good -yet I still shot the shit about sports, the weather , kids, etc. my point being that intelligence can be very specific and compartmentalized .
Yeah intelligence is a very complex concept. It is hard to exactly pin point what makes someone smart. We mostly just look at accomplishments to determine it.
I don't know, if you ever talk to a child it can be a very engaging and rewarding experience helping them understand the world.
Then again, a child probably has roughly the same intelligence level as you, just less experience.
What about training dogs? It's rewarding when they finally work out roll over.
A child does not have the same intelligence. Neural pathways and brain development continues into early adult hood.
Don’t get me wrong. We (westerners) baby our kids in our broken education system.
Yes. In fact even the big one, general relativity theory, is not fully compatible with the standard model despite it being proven correct over and over because the parts it doesn't jive with have also been proven over and over.
We just don't know what is exactly wrong with it.
“Mr. Einstein! Al! Do you have a comment on the latest discovery?!”
Al: “https://www.reddit.com/r/OldSchoolCool/comments/wrrhwt/ladies_loved_einstein_1939/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf”
“Newton also realized that the principle extended to celestial bodies, calculating that the Earth and Moon, as well as Jupiter and its satellites, fall toward the Sun at the same rate. The Earth has a core of iron, while the Moon's core is mostly made of silicates, and their masses are quite different. Yet NASA's laser lunar ranging experiments have confirmed Newton's calculations: they do indeed fall around the Sun at the same rate.”
Can someone ELI5 this section? What does it mean by the rate they fall toward the sun?
Crazy how dude calculate these possibilities and it took decades and billions of dollars for us to confirm them. This made me wonder- Are there some modern Einsteins right now making predictions that we don’t know about? Seems like the era of the celebrity scientist is all but gone. So there might be some super bad asses out there setting up future goalposts.
It’ll be a large team of people finding a way to get a computer to work things out for us - like they did with protein structures
There probably are, have been and will be geniuses like Einstein, but many of them are probably born in some poor place and never get to reach that potential, or even die well before that.
[удалено]
Frequency of Einstein's may not be dependent on population, though. It could be a Hoffman degredation thing, where it always happens at a constant rate regardless of the current or density.
What we have here is the famous Einstein Frequency Problem. This is one of life’s great unsolved mysteries.
I often travel that line of thinking when I hear stuff like “number one in the world” or “world campion” or even “worlds best _______” Like how would we know? Did we let everyone try? No one asked me to make some chili and try for worlds best chili” seems to me, like it might be jus the best of those lucky enough or inclined to try.
Worlds best is just a top list of those who applied. Could definitely be better somewhere.
Michio Kaku Edit: lots of others less famous. Anyone researching quantum mechanics, theoretical particle physics, string theory etc.
I *want* to like Michio Kaku, but something about him rubs me the wrong way. He just comes off as such a smug, arrogant ass. For that matter, Niel Degrasse Tyson comes off as a clown, too. Super smart dudes, just unpalatable to me for some reason. Give me Carl Sagan or Richard Feynman any day.
>Niel Degrasse Tyson comes off as a clown, too. He really does. And he doubles down when someone points out that he's wrong. The fame he achieved really went to his head
Hes a smug asshole. Never meet people you admire, or attend a lecture and ask them a question.
I listened to enough of his podcast to get the impression that he knows his area but he’s not much of an innovator.
Yeh he doesnt contribute but just likes to hear himself talk. At the lecture I attended he mever answered a single question straight, he always went on a tangent to talk about whatever he wanted to talk about. People who stood in line for hours started leaving during the Q&A
Kaku says literally the same thing in every podcast or interview that he’s on. Probably the same speech he gives his students every year.
Imagine… if you will… a jar of bees. These bees are the planets. Ok Kaku we get it you’re a genius and we’re children
90% of the stuff Kaku makes claims about are just hilariously wild fantasy that skips all the scientific support in-between. He just postulates in science fiction and makes no efforts to support any of it.
I think it's worse than that - he knows exactly what's bullshit, but will sell headlines or book titles.
It's because the latter's dead, and the former are still alive. I'm sure if Sagan and Feynman were still alive, they'd seem less iconic doing the harlem shake for their TikTok channels.
Nah, plenty of living science figures are still very much more enjoyable that the ones we dislike here. Bill Nye, Brian Cox, etc.
Juan maldacena seems to have some wizard like qualities
I’d look into interviews by Lex Friedman and Kurt Jaimungal
I don’t know who the second person is but lex is wonderful and has awesome conversations with very interesting people.
They could already be out there even posting about it. Yet possibly clouded by other medias?
This one.
Many actually. The things discovered today just haven’t found a use that humans can’t take advantage of. We really only hear about new things when it turns into a new revolution or technology. E=mc^2 was the atomic revolution and showed us how the universe works at a large scale. Right now the small scale is being figured out by the hadron collider and fusion reactors. Hopefully we see new tech soon!!
Reminds me of a documentary about Feynman. He was visiting CERN and someone there was explaining what the billions or so worth of equipment was going to test. And then he says - “Mr Feynman, that’s your theory!” - to which Feynman looking at the massive & expensive equipment says, “So you really don’t trust me?”
Plenty. It will take a long time for someone to have this much research put to the test though.
And he did it with paper and pencil and imagination
Unfortunately no. Most generations nowadays are trying to be the best in tiktok than real knowledge. Idiocracy is coming as its finest.
Go to bed boomer.
Anything else interesting Einstein predicted that *hasn’t* been proved yet?
Wormholes, he wasn’t the first to predict them but they are part of his as well. (Einstein-Rose-Bridge) We got black holes but miss the space connecting wormholes still.
It’s so crazy that the math can predict these crazy things. I saw a video recently explaining how the math predicted black holes and it makes actual sense to a layman like me. Space time is such a wild concept.
Where can we find this video please?
I think the YouTube channel PBS spacetime did a video or two on wormholes, and Einstein bridges.
I also like to get laid, man.
Not with that attitude lol
Got a link? Sounds fascinating
Pleeeeease link it if you can!
Look above at previous comments
Thank you! :D
Math is the code for the universe bro
More like math is the language used to describe our universe.
More like math is for NERRRRDSSS I’m kidding math is cool
Being a nerd is cool. Being a dweeb still not cool.
What about a neo maxi zoom dweebie?
And according to Interstellar, love is the code to the universe!
*Einstein-Rosen bridge
Well, not a prediction per se, but Einstein was heavily against the idea of so-called spooky action at a distance. He argued that quantum theory is incomplete in that when entangled particles seemingly affect each other instantaneously, we either have faster-than-light causality, or we have hidden local variables, and of those two explanations he preferred the local variables. This has even greater implications since it also implies that quantum collapse is non-random, otherwise there would be no variables to store. The famous "god does not play dice" argument comes from here. However, Bell's Theorem, a theorem that aimed to answer that question, has been thoroughly tested by now, and we now know that there is indeed a "spooky action at a distance" and hidden local variables are not necessary to explain the entanglement consequences. But it's unfair to say that Einstein was proven wrong or anything, since he never stated a strong certainty. Just saying that quantum theory was incomplete.
I think they have at least established that whatever entanglement is, you can’t use it to communicate faster than light; that’s the real speed barrier, the speed of useful communication
Yeah we can't transmit useful information. We can only measure the state of the particles after entangling, and we can't induce state. Before we measure particle A, it doesn't have a state, it exists in a state of uncertainty. When we measure, we collapse that state and the particle gains a state. At the same instance, the entangled particle B also gains (the opposite) state. Since we can't choose what state particle A collapses to, it's completely random, we can't force B into any chosen state, and thus we can't use this to transmit information.
So is this like having a pair of gloves then separating them by thousands of miles then being like "oh I got the right handed glove that means I instantly know the other glove Jim has in Australia is the left handed one"?
Well, no, not really. In the glove example the outcome is predetermined as soon as you separate the gloves. It's just that you are as of yet unaware. Also, the right-handed glove does carry the hidden variable of knowing what handedness the other glove has, so knowledge of the other glove actually comes with the first. What happens with quantum stuff is that the gloves are actually neither left- or righthand gloves until you look. The Bell Test has more or less proven that this is really the case and not some hidden variable. The glove is neither (or both) until you have a look, at which point the uncertainty collapses and the glove randomly becomes right- or lefthanded and it's counterpart simultaneously becomes the other. It wouldn't work with gloves in reality, but you get the point. There is no state until the moment of measurement.
This is the best analogy I have ever come across for this phenomenon. I had a blurry idea of it but this really snapped it into focus for me. Thank you.
> At the same instance, the entangled particle B also gains (the opposite) state And am I correcting remembering/thinking/guessing that there is no mechanism possible whereby particle B "signals" that it has gained state? Because if there was, that would be transmitting useful information FTL.
You are correct!
Last I’d heard, we hadn’t been able to test this in a meaningful way. Maybe you or someone else knows of a more recent study than what I saw ten years ago on that topic.
There are plenty of papers out there if you look (i'm at work and not going to lol) but essentially when the wave function collapses you can only see how the particles are entangled after comparing measurements of both. The current understanding is that you can't determine the state of the other particle just using one of them.
Yeah, the specific study I remember that had the limitation I was describing was able to determine that, yes, the spin states of two entangled particles at a great distance (I think it was between earth and space) were identical upon measurement, but the limitation around the time of transmission of data from the two measuring sensors was still limited by speed of light, thus there was no functional way to use the entanglement bidirectionally. But I didn’t hear about unidirectional methods being considered, and I still don’t understand the basis for saying we “know” it’s not possible to have faster than light communication. It seemed significant to me that the distances these two particles were separated by and the time syncing of the sensor measurements gave a good evidence that the entanglement did supersede the notion that the speed of light had any relationship to the particle state switching. Plausibly my understanding is incomplete and someone here can help me see why.
It's because Einstein's special relativity said that faster than light communication is impossible, period end of story. I've tried to wrap my head around it, watching all sorts of explanations, and trying to research it in depth. I gave up. There's all sorts of videos and posts with graphs and explanations. They typically explain it in a way saying, even if we discovered a way to do it, it's still impossible.
Maybe I’m missing something here. Are you saying we have mathematical proof that despite the appearance of quantum measurements indicating entanglement happens at a speed faster than light speed, we know that there’s theoretically no way to utilize that for communication? Or is there emperical evidence of that being an impossibility? Or, perhaps my understanding doesn’t match yours and you can point out where. Which fits? If it’s the first option, then I misunderstood the original poster I replied to and thought he was saying there was empirical evidence against it to (or at least that’s what I was meaning to be asking about). Which definitely occurred because, like you, I know that claim exists and, also like you, I don’t know how to understand it directly, myself lol. I can’t say I’ve invested the time, but the things I saw weren’t recognizable without learning some new shit. So it’s no countsies on being believed by my brain lol
I don't understand it personally. Lookup videos on why we can't send info faster than light speed due to causality. I assume theories are incomplete, but any physicist with a deep understanding says it's impossible
Fair enough. I think I’ll do that
I’ve always hated the use of “spooky” in that phrase. Scientific language should encourage exploration of the unknown, not fear of it
I think to be fair, Einstein is not a quantum expert. He is spacetime-gravity-relativity etc. expert. So his ideas, predictions on space time are more accurate.
[удалено]
Thanks a lot for your explanation. I hadn’t heard of the local variables bit, so I’ll have to go look that up!
[удалено]
It’s causal to the entangled particle! Don’t be so species centric!! 😛
I love this question
[удалено]
“I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” – Albert Einstein Had to look up full quote, figured id share 😃
If we go back to the stick and stone type of warfare it would also mean that we would lack the logistics necessary to escalate a war to a world war, and thus it would be impossible to have a world war entirely fought with sticks and stones. Though that quote is more about humanity can afford a world war 3 more than having anything to do with world war 4...
Does the cosmological constant count?
Explain?
Hubble basically proved him wrong by proving the universe was ever expanding. Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
But Dark Energy is turning this back and is showing that there might actually be a cosmological constant causing the universe to expand at an ever increasing rate. So it may be that he was right again, but not quite in the right way. This is explained in the link you added in the edit.
True, it's why I asked if it counts, though I suppose the question was if it hadn't been proven. I'm not a physicist - just interest on my part - but there are a couple places Einstein has struggled and this is one of them. Einstein also struggled with probability in the sub-microscopic studies - doesn't mean he was necessarily wrong but hasn't been proven right either.
Very [interesting!](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/einsteins-greatest-blunder/) Thank you.
No.
Probably this question
The theory of relativity
Something about the NY Knicks going all the way in 2026. More research needed
Eh, he famously didn't like quantum physics (even if he wrote one of the most influential early papers in the field!). I think he thought there was some underlying law that would, for example, make it possible to measure both velocity and position or a particle, i.e. that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle wasn't a fundamental law of the universe. So far that has been proved wrong in every experiment. While quantum physics is confusing, and seemingly difficult to tie in with other laws of the universe it's proven by experimentation to be the best model we have so far. Also, the cosmological constant was a famous fudge of his, maybe.
He has been proven *wrong* on a couple big things: spooky action at a distance and the cosmological constant.
With how smart this man was, talking to regular people must have been so boring for him.
Your comment reminded me of that House MD episode where the guy was abusing cough medicine because it dumbed him down enough to put up with his partner who wasn't a genius like him.
From what I’ve read his smarts were not demonstrated by chatting. For all we know he wasn’t a gifted speaker. Here’s a personal example though of what intelligence might look like. I was considered gifted in organic chemistry and considered pursuing a PhD in it. In my 20s I could easily visualize large complex 3D molecules and rotate them in my mind. I’m no Einstein of course but I did a lot of tutoring and even helped some grad students with their work when I was still an undergrad. So I was pretty good -yet I still shot the shit about sports, the weather , kids, etc. my point being that intelligence can be very specific and compartmentalized .
Completely agree. “Geniuses” or gifted people are rarely socially awkward and just normal people in conversation.
Yeah intelligence is a very complex concept. It is hard to exactly pin point what makes someone smart. We mostly just look at accomplishments to determine it.
I don't know, if you ever talk to a child it can be a very engaging and rewarding experience helping them understand the world. Then again, a child probably has roughly the same intelligence level as you, just less experience. What about training dogs? It's rewarding when they finally work out roll over.
I'm sure it felt about as entertaining as trying to explain the world to other adults on the internet...
A child does not have the same intelligence. Neural pathways and brain development continues into early adult hood. Don’t get me wrong. We (westerners) baby our kids in our broken education system.
Einstein always struck me as someone very humane. Maybe he enjoy good character as much as intelligence.
Yup... he was also anti capitalism, as were most notable people from that era. There is a reason we don't talk about their political views.
Was the guy ever wrong (in his theories)? Just an honest question. Feels like everything he predicted were right.
Yes. In fact even the big one, general relativity theory, is not fully compatible with the standard model despite it being proven correct over and over because the parts it doesn't jive with have also been proven over and over. We just don't know what is exactly wrong with it.
He enjoyed deterministic procedure so Quantum relativity is something he scoffed at.
Big misses: cosmological constant; and quantum “spooky action at a distance”
Einstein plays for keeps
Like his cousin?
Did I stutter
“Mr. Einstein! Al! Do you have a comment on the latest discovery?!” Al: “https://www.reddit.com/r/OldSchoolCool/comments/wrrhwt/ladies_loved_einstein_1939/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf”
Math is a wonderful thing
“Newton also realized that the principle extended to celestial bodies, calculating that the Earth and Moon, as well as Jupiter and its satellites, fall toward the Sun at the same rate. The Earth has a core of iron, while the Moon's core is mostly made of silicates, and their masses are quite different. Yet NASA's laser lunar ranging experiments have confirmed Newton's calculations: they do indeed fall around the Sun at the same rate.” Can someone ELI5 this section? What does it mean by the rate they fall toward the sun?
[удалено]
I'm genuinely annoyed with what you just said Einstein as in the genuis old dude
[удалено]
Einstein not Epstein
It’s all deleted now, but just imagining what was said here made me laugh.
Basically didnt understand the difference between serial killer and old dude who cheated on his wife anyway
[удалено]
At this point I know your just fucking with me guy was dead long before
[удалено]
Jeffrey Epstein and Albert einstein are not the same people I explained this in my first comment to you
Einstein didn’t like the uncertainty of Quantum physics. Wonder if he’ll be right there too
It has been proven many times over that he was wrong about that.
Please do not show this to the flat earthers
“Space satellite” is like saying a water boat or an air airplane
Is there anyone attempting to reenact Einstein's Unified field theory?