How do you prove the entire world wrong?

[daejahdabree]

[normalice]

You can't. At least not without the will and the power to eliminate everyone who disagrees with you or at least torture them into compliance. While maddening, the question to ask yourself is why should they want to believe you? What is the immediate benefit it provides? The answer for getting people to believe facts is almost always "no benefit" or indeed "costs, instead." There are people who get uncomfortable when they are in debt and try to pay it but most people would happily borrow a billion dollars and make a whole industry of lawyers to fight paying it back in court. When you give anyone any information you are offering them a debt to facts that they must reconcile with reality. If that information makes them feel good, they may take that offer, but if no one makes them pay their debt to reality by making sure their information was real, then why would they? Doesn't everyone want to feel good?

The best you can do is prove it in a lab and publish your results. It may take a hundred years but that's the only path to becoming common knowledge.

[sensible27]

Or you could just write a paper and get it peer reviewed. It's not hard to convince people after that if you have leveraged communication channels

[normalice]

That's sort of what I meant in my last sentence. But anyway there are peer reviewed studies that show people don't often change their opinions when challenged by peer reviewed studies.

[sensible27]

I think that might happen when study is not actually popular or revolutionary enough

[normalice]

Which is a succinct description of pretty much all studies. Nothing seems revolutionary until someone figures out how to make money off of it.

[sensible27]

How are people making money out of general relativity?

[normalice]

Sattelite communication uses general relativity equations.

But even then i wouldn't call general relativity "popular."

[sensible27]

It's literally one of the most popular theories, probably one of the more important papers

And actually gps satellites don't actually need general relativity to work, they can reset their clock which i think they already do and the effects would be the same. The satelite example is used to demonstrate that relativity works, the satellites don't really need to account for it if they just reset their clocks often enough possibly

[normalice]

I guess I don't understand your motive here. Why would anyone design a satellite that uses faulty calculations when accurate ones that are just as easy are widely known? And what are you even talking about clocks? They use atomic clocks specifically so they don't have to reset them. Unless you're talking about time dilation, which is special relativity not general. General relativity can most easily be summarized as "gravity." They definitely don't use Newtonian gravity for satellites 😅

[sensible27]

*sighs* the point was even if we didn't know about special relativity and general relativity, we wouldn't need to know how our calculations are messed up to figure out by what amount they're messed up

I don't think you understand how the system works, I'm not sure but the atomic clock you're referencing isn't built in the satelite. It based on a ground station that communicates with the satelite, and the clock on board the satelite resets to account for general ans possibly special relativity..

I do think we use Newtonian gravity for satellites, it gives very similar results while not being complicated to calculate.

For example, the time dilation which by the way occurs because of both speed and gravity, is about 7 microseconds per day because of special relativity and about 45 microseconds per day because of general relativity.

[normalice]

Well, as long as you aren't in charge of any satellites I guess it's harmless if you want to believe that 😊

[sensible27]

I think i was wrong about atomic clocks not being on board satellites but they are. They essentially time stamp every transmission in a sense. My assumption was they wouldn't need to since the orbits are sort if fixed but I guess it's more convenient and the orbits can change.

Everything else seems correct

[normalice]

The "orbits" were pretty much everything else we were talking about, as that's what is computed via general relativity. Also, it's been a while since I've dug into the raw sattelite transmission data but if you are referring to GPS sattelites I vaguely recall they only send a time stamp every 15 minutes. I could easily be misremembering, though..

[sensible27]

I don't think I was fully wrong, as far as I've read both the satellites and the receiver stations have atomic clocks. And the way the system works is just by triangulating (I'm not sure if that's the right word) the positions based on how much time it took for the signals to reach.

I actually can't find a single case of general relativity being used artificial satellites, for navigation. If you have evidence for otherwise it'd be interesting to see.. but as far as I know even mars missions used Newtonian gravity

[normalice]

If by "receiver station" you mean anything that uses GPS, no. Atomic clocks are expensive. They wouldn't put one in a cell phone or whatever. Instead they just put more satellites up and say you need 4 sattelites instead of 3 to also solve for time. And the difference between Newtonian gravity and general relativity is maybe a micro second of calculation time, to a computer. There isn't a reason to use Newtonian gravity, least of all because it assumes a spherical earth.

Anyway, I got distracted and forgot to point out that general relativity is not, in fact, popular. People have kind of heard the term. That's about it. If that fits your definition of popular, alright then, but it doesn't fit mine. It's not revolutionary anymore, either. It's just an update to a model for a phenomenon we already knew about. It may have been revolutionary once but most of the people to whom it had that effect are now dead and the scientific culture has become far more profit driven since.

[sensible27]

I define popular by the effect it has on the world or whatever field it is in, most theories especially revolutionary ones are not "popular" by your definition but the world accepts them as true and functions accordingly. You don't really need to go to every person and explain how you came to a conclusion for something to influence the world.. which is what the original question is concerned with

I didn't mean phones would have an atomic clock, but I assumed there would be something relaying the local time information for it to trilaterate.

[normalice]

The original question didn't seem to be asking about a scientific thing at all. My intention was only to point out that, if there is a way to prove the world wrong, it is only in the fields of science that such a thing would even be possible. But even then it could take several generations before the general population is willing to accept it, if what is proves flies in the face of the superstitions they've built their self worth upon.

[daejahdabree]

Wow really your view is cynical and apathetic. There are many people proving the world wrong right now, it may cause a lot of cultural drama but bettering the country or the society or understanding is worth it many times. right now, ignorance reins, and when ignorance reins, life is lost

[sensible27]

I don't know if that's the case at all, the more counterintuitive something and the more it goes in the opposition of what people believe if it is well proven, the more valueable it is.

If you've an example of contrary.. it's often the case when something is similar in nature and not well proven that people see to stick with their own intutions

[normalice]

I've always thought of "cynical" as a combination of pessimism and manipulation. Like someone who assumes the worst but also uses people because he correctly guesses they will be their worst selves, but in the process also adds to the overall negativity by driving them to be that way in the first place.

I'm not trying to manipulate anyone to my own ends. I'm not even trying to be pessimistic. I'm simply trying to describe how the world has worked up to this point. The asker asked a vague question so I had to guess at its intent. And my guess is she holds some value where pretty much everyone she knows or has ever heard of disagrees. If she wants to prove that value she needs to know that the main barrier to anyone proving anything in a way that sticks is communication. And the only avenue we have as a species to get around that barrier is peer reviewed conclusions from lab results. But, while it does exist, phd theses and scientific joirnals aren't not exactly flying off the shelves like, for example, Harry Potter or bibles. It's necissarily dry content both to read and to write. So even if she proves it she'll likely not get much exposure to her results unless it becomes relevant to her peers via affecting those with authority over them - which almost certianly means one of them found a way to make it profitable.

In any case it's a long tedious road and the reason it exists, in part, is to make sure everyone is communicating by the same standards of logic. This is good but it also comes with a cost, and that is you actually have to be right or you may very well prove yourself wrong, instead.

[LikeALog]

You can't. You would be ridiculed as a science denier, conspiracy theorist or a radical by some other name. People don't want their beliefs upset. They want to continue believing what they have been told.

[Curiousgirl2414]

The days of proving others wrong and winning arguments/debates are over, simply because of how divided and entrenched everybody is of their beliefs, completely unwilling to accept even a shred of possibility that they’re wrong. This site is exhibit A of that.

If you try to tell somebody “the sky is blue,” in today’s times you’ll most likely get the response “that’s what the mainstream media wants you to think.”

[sensible27]

m.youtube.com/watch

[Curiousgirl2414]

Lol well played.

[Starla1234]

By doing and achieving everything they say you can’t.

[cth96190]

“It is necessary that I die for my people, but my spirit will rise from the grave and the world will know that I was right.” - Adolf Hitler (April, 1945)

[sensible27]

Depends on what you're trying to prove them wrong on. If you're actually right, you should have irrefutable evidence

[OddBeMe]

Can’t. The process is thus…

1) they believe you are a witch.
2) you prove you’re not a witch but they still don’t believe you.
3) enough of them are turned that they finally believe it.
4) they claim to have known it all along.

[Adam1978]

You don't, you divide and conquer. Ie win many smaller battles than lose a grand one.

[exitseven]

If I know I am right I have to hang in there and convince as many people as I can.

[Luckycharms12]

Firstly stop caring to much about others or the world do what you want to do make yourself happy only got one life make it best for you

[anylolone]

By being right, consistently and waiting a few decades, maybe generations.

[NamerOfStars]

Slowly and painfully.

[Ms_Vanderquack]

With irrefutable proof.

[sensible27]

This.

[jshm2]

With evidence and a good case.

[emperor90]

You can't unless u work hard

[JohnK123]

In what way