The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

This classy bordello would sing: General relativity and Special relativity is false, fake, and wrong

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/4/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,428 times Debate No: 67826
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Heres the deal, I'm a genuius. America has gone to crap because of the acceptance of relativity. Here in the great country of romanie we dont accept such crap. I am willing to deb8 any fool who believes relativity is true and accurate.

You wont beat me. Boom. I am almost divine.

Accept the debate and get learned

i ask all voteies judges unbiasedly.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


I am jedi4 peope, and i have discoverd the theories of reletivity developed by albert godelstien are wrong. Open your your mind and anus for the logic of dawn.

Relativity is a bad name


If general relativity is general then special realtivity is really specific reativity. Yeah the physicies and say all teh laws being teh same in absolute motion is specific but general relativity is still very specific. Observe

"General relativity is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Albert Einstein between 1907 and 1915."

That aint general, thats realy really specific init?

General relativity and special relativity are incoherenrt because they are both specific theories and therefore false and therefore wrong.

Relatrivitay ignore phenemolnolgoy

Me and my mates formed a phenomenology club. Most of the time we drink a little beer, smoke a little pot, snort a litte cane, read some Husserl then have an orgy. Then we use anti phenomenology books to clean up the fluids.

What me an my mates think about after the orgy is amazin. It would blow up the universe if it got out. One of the tings we got to thinking about is reallytivity. Wes says that according to phenomoenorgy time is complex and not in intervels. It is a string of time. Note that Husserl say this experienvce of time is embeded within the scientist. The phenomenology cums first then the science coms. U cannot debate phenomongly because science is embeded within it. Any science that tries to rape phenemonolgy should get the D in the B.

Relativghty f*cks with time and f*cks wit the phenenogy of time witch the relativity is based on and QED relativity contradicts itself.

No verification of spacetime

To date there has no ben a verifcation spacetime exists and bend. Som experiments show the curvature of your mom and light. but that dont mean there exists bending. it just mean that is how it do. It dont talk about how the light get there. By curvature is complete speculation and mental masturb8tion.

Relativity is inconsitant with established math

In this equasion

<a href=; />

Realativity predits an alcourse sin /P not a sin/l. and preditcs a b^4 not a b^2. There are over 300 errors youd make if relaitivty was used in this equastion AND THIS IS A PROBLEM ABOUT GRAPH SPACETIME!!!!!.


Realitivy cant stop the fire. It fails harder than a special needs kid in school.It fails like a turkey trying to fly. it fails like this guy trying to pick up a women

Realtitvy fails harder than him!



Before I rebut, I will make my opening statements.
Proof of relativity-- from
"Albert Einstein proposed three tests of general relativity, subsequently called the classical tests of general relativity, in 1916:[1]
1. The perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit
2. The deflection of light by the Sun

3. The gravitational redshift of light"

And he also says "The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible". So, what Sir Einstein is saying, is that if even one of these three is disproved, then his theory is wrong.
As cited by the same wikipedia page, the first point is proven in this chart:

Sources of the precession of perihelion for Mercury

Amount (arcsec/Julian century)


531.63 ±0.69[1] Gravitational tugs of the other planets
0.0254 Oblateness of the Sun (quadrupole moment)
42.98 ±0.04[2] General relativity
574.64±0.69 Total
574.10±0.65[1] Observed

Point two is proven by this part of the passage: "...The first observation of light deflection was .... performed in May 1919 by Arthur Eddington and his collaborators during a total solar eclipse,[3] so that the stars near the Sun could be observed. Observations were made simultaneously in the cities of Sobral, Ceará, Brazil and in São Tomé and Príncipe on the west coast of Africa."

Point three is proven by "it was....conclusively tested when the Poundâ€"Rebka experiment in 1959 measured the relative redshift of two sources situated at the top and bottom of Harvard University's Jefferson tower using an extremely sensitive phenomenon called the Mössbauer effect.[4][5] The result was in excellent agreement with general relativity".

[3] Dyson, F. W.; Eddington, A. S., Davidson C. (1920). "A determination of the deflection of light by the Sun's gravitational field, from observations made at the total eclipse of 29 May 1919". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 220A: 291â€"333.

The links don't work for some reason but they can be found on, and they're professional websites cited at the bottom of Wikipedia's page concerning relativity that I cited above.

Now, onto my rebuttals!
Bad name of relativity
Just because something does not look the way it is does not mean it is wrong.
Here's an example.
Bannana is a bannana. That is correct. But Bannana looks like
(Ban nana= get rid of your nanny)
Bannana =/= ban nana
But that does not mean Bannana is not correct. Just because you add a space does not make a bannana magically become banning a nanny. The bannana is still a bannana. Similarly, just because you call it "general" relativity does not mean it has to be general. Who knows? Maybe Relativity's Commander-in-Chief? But either way, "General" or "Special" are just names. They don't determine how false it is. I could call 1+1=2 "The Theory of Super Incredible Fathom Quantums", assuming I discovered that 1+1=2. I'm the creator, I get to create the name, no matter how ridiculous. Einstien wanted his serious theory to sound funny. A specific theory being called "general" is pretty funny in my opinion. He did it. Not to mention his theory is still correct, even if it's funny.
Next up, phenomenology.
My opponent fails to show exactly how and why the relativity "contradicts" itself. He needs to show the exact quotes. He can't just give us a website. Who knows, it might actually support relativity.
No verification of spacetime
Already proven above
The wrong equation
We're not talking about the equation here. I only have to prove the theories of relativity. The prediction being slightly off still proves space time exists. General relativity is still proven even with these new equations.
Relativity did not fail. Relativity exists, and it's true.
Debate Round No. 2


*burp* thanks mah tigga.

The supposed proof of relativity


A hole lot of Cons solovo's are blah blah blah Solovos that aint no one slooshed before. I don't know what he thinks he is showing because his argument has tons of problems like classical physics predicts the same damn veshch my droogs. There can be explained by skazating that there is a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury. No relativity need

All his tree argues are baddiwad my vecks. Sure, these veshchs exists but we have no proof spacetime causes these.

Deflection of sunlight sucks too. We have never viddy actual light bending only in the pictures. This veck eemyaed Alfred North Whitehead skazat with enough pictures of space light bending will emerge but only its illusionary.

Source: Whitehead, Process and Reality

Redshifting of light is better explained by dark matter than relativistic physics.


I dont know if you were drunk or high when writing those rebutts

Butt in any case you failed.

"Just because something does not look the way it is does not mean it is wrong."


General relativity is about the theory. The name general is in the theory but bannana aint about regular nanas init? Btw dont ban your nanny because some nannys are super hot Davochkas. Observe

<a href=; />

<a href=; />

Hell even the super nanny is hot

SOme of them hav the sexes with you if you hire them Observe:

[Link deleted by Mods. We don't accept Porn here on]

Hot right? Specially when the wife joins in and well i dont want to spoil it.


You clearly have no f*ckin clue on what I was talking about. I dont need quotes. that website shows talks about how relativity f*cks with time .read it. Phenenmonolhoiy is the study of experience and science is based on it aaaaaand relativity f*cks with time and QED f*cks with what science is based on.

No verification of spacetime

so? those three experiments dont prove spacetime. How does mercery oribiting mean spacetime is bent. How does light around an object prove its bent? HOW? It dont. you cant prove the bending of spacetime is the cause anymore than I can say magic gnomes are the cause.

The wrong equation

OMG. If relativity fails this eqasuion that means it isnt true LOLOOLOLOL. It isnt slightly off it fails over 300 times in that equasion witcvh is about spacetime. Your tellin me if relativity fails predictions about spacetime it doesnt matter. Do you even science? LOL

Con aint shown nuttin.



My opponent says that dark matter changes the shift of light, but that only supports relativity. I mean, how else would you explain the seemingly random points of view in time? Magic? Of course not. And besides, just because light shifts due to a different source than what was originally thought, that still does not mean relativity is not false.

As for super nanny, my opponent proved my point for me. He admits in his own words, it is "sexy nanny", not "super nanny". See? Different definition from the name.

As for phenomenology, the theory is part of what relativity is about. Your source doesn't exactly disprove relativity. It just explains what the specific part about it is, and how it's supported (we're always looking for more evidence to prove relativity, it doesn't hurt to have a back-up for Einstein).

No verification of spacetime
Only the bending of space-time could have caused the strange shift of light. It makes sense, really. The gravity causes all the planets to shift a certain way, and the bend was an irregularity within the gravity equation. Newton predicted Mercury's orbit wrong; but only because he did not know or predict that space-time existed. He couldn't have possibly figured out the way objects interact with each other in space.

As for the wrong equation, there's more to it than just one equation. To re-assert everything, evidence from a website [] gives us all we need to know that relativity is definitely true, regardless of the updates in the equation. (For example, if the Big Bang theory was inaccurate at calculating the universe's expansion by thousands of light years, but the universe still expands even in the new theory, then the BB theory will still be true, since the universe is still expanding)

So here we go, more evidence (mostly repeated) from

"The theory of relativity is perhaps the most successful development in the history of science ...Space and time can even change depending on who is measuring them; the hands on a clock will look smaller and tick slower the faster the clock is moving with respect to you.

Applications of Relativity

The theory of relativity is required whenever we study objects that are either (a)moving in a strong gravitational field, or (b) moving near the speed of light. If (b) is true but not (a), we can get away with using a simpler version of the theory called special relativity; historically, this is what Einstein developed first, while the more encompassing theory of general relativity came later....

Moving in a Strong Gravitational Field

One of the most amazing aspects of the theory of relativity is that it completely changes the way we understand gravity.

Scientists have known for a long time that gravity is unusual....Why is it that gravity, and gravity alone, is able to adjust itself to pull everything towards the Earth at the same rate?

Einstein answered this question in a revolutionary way. According to Einstein, gravity is not a force which pulls on things; rather, it is a curvature of space and time caused by the presence of a nearby massive object (like the Earth). When something comes along and moves past the massive object, it will appear to be pulled towards it, but in reality, it isn't being pulled at all. It is actually moving along the same straight line that it was moving along in empty space, but this straight line will now look like it is curved, due to gravity's warping of the underlying "space-time" continuum.

Curved space: a simple analogy

...Suppose you are in Ithaca, New York (home of Cornell University) and want to travel to Rome, Italy, which is approximately due east of Ithaca and a quarter of the way around the globe. You might think the best way to get there is to start off heading east and keep going straight until you reach Rome, as shown in the red path on this map:

Map of the Earth, with an east-west path between Ithaca and Rome marked in red, and a "curved" path from Ithaca to Africa marked in blue
Original map credit:

In fact, though, if you start off heading east and continue to go straight, carefully putting one foot in front of the other, you will wind up taking the blue path; by the time you're as far east as Rome, you'll be somewhere in western Africa, near the equator! (If you don't believe this statement, try it out with a globe and a piece of string. Stretch the string tight so that it is forced to be straight, then place it east-west across New York. The rest of the string will pass through Africa and cross the equator, just like the blue path in the above map.)

...some lines which are actually straight (like the blue path) look curved, while some lines which are actually curved (like the red path) look straight.

According to Einstein, the same thing happens near a massive object, only the curvature happens to something that has four dimensions (the space we live in plus one dimension of time) rather than two dimensions (the surface of the Earth). Space and time near a massive object are "curved," but we are unable to perceive this directly since we are limited to seeing things in three dimensions. Our brains therefore assume that space is flat... It is not gravity we feel, Einstein says, but simply the ground pushing up on our feet.

Effects of curved space and time

...gravity's ability to bend light as it passes through the warped space near a massive object; this effect was first observed by Arthur Eddington in 1919, an event which rocketed Einstein to international fame. Eddington's original results are now considered controversial, but improved technology has spectacularly demonstrated that Einstein's prediction was correct. In recent years, astronomers have not only confirmed gravity's ability to bend light but also found very strong circumstantial evidence for the existence of black holes, objects which bend light so much that it cannot even escape.

Another major success of Einstein's theory was that it fixed some serious problems that astronomers of his day had in understanding the orbit of Mercury, the closest planet to the Sun. Some people thought that there must have been another, unseen planet (which they called Vulcan) whose gravitational pull was affecting Mercury's orbit, but Einstein showed that all the problems went away once the theory of relativity was taken into account.

....Gravity's slowing down of time also affects the frequency of light waves and therefore their color; light becomes bluer as it approaches a massive object and redder as it moves away. This effect was first observed in 1960 by Robert Pound and Glen Rebka, who shot gamma rays up to the top of a building and measured the change in their color as they got farther away from the Earth...

Einstein's simple solution

Einstein realized that in order for the speed of light to remain constant as seen by all observers, other things which everyone had always assumed to be constant would have to change. The faster that two people move with respect to each other, the more they disagree about the light (or the truck, in the above example), and the more they think that something with the other person must be out of whack. Einstein showed that the things which seemed out of whack would have to be length and time - each person would observe the other to be shrinking along the direction of motion and their clocks to be ticking more slowly...

From Einstein's simple observations followed many more powerful insights, among them the equivalence of mass and energy (expressed by the famous formula E=mc2) and the fact that information can never travel faster than the speed of light. These ideas and others are confirmed daily ...around the world, as well as in many other experiments...things that can change, from point to point and person to person...."

What did I tell you? You can't go against the truth. Relativity is not fake at all.
Debate Round No. 3


Jedi4 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Jedi4 1 year ago
Romanie is slang for romania you burk
Posted by 9spaceking 1 year ago
Why not
I won this last time
Posted by purpleduck 1 year ago
pretty sure this is troll, cuz romaine is a kind of lettuce
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by That1User 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con posted better arguments overall as to why relativity is true. Pro loses the conduct point for posting pictures that are either irrelevant or have profanities in them, as well as forfeiting a round.