Experts doubt Einstein..... but Einstein Dingleberries still worship him
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Quantum Gravity 398.0: USA Proves Flexagons Related to Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: The Necessity of an experiment (classical electrodynamics) that should have been done 100 years ago
From: Me, ...again! on 6 Jun 2010 14:05 On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, Martin Brown wrote: > On 04/06/2010 21:12, Me, ...again! wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Martin Brown wrote: >> >>> For that to work you have to know enough about the subject be able to >>> distinguish who are the experts and the ever present netkooks. What >>> you have posted so far and your "methodology" suggests that you cannot. >> >> Well, you and I are in disagreement. >> >>> There may be others like Hilbert and Ricci who should get more public >>> credit for their contributions (particularly on the mathematics) but >>> Einstein brought it all together and provided the inspired physical >>> interpretation. Nothing that any of these deranged nutters says can >>> alter the fact that every experiment to date has confirmed the theory. >> >> Namecalling is not legitamate refutation. > > EVERY EXPERIMENT TO DATE HAS CONFIRMED THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY. > > Show me an experiment that refutes either SR or GR predictions and then I > will consider alternatives that can better explain the observations. Until > that time comes we have a working theory that can be used to make *TESTABLE* > predictions and do engineering for high energy physics. > > It is too bad that you cannot understand relativity but you do not seem to be > putting in any effort to do so. I never claimed to understand R. I never, actually, claimed that R was wrong. I never, actually, claimed that anti-R was right. What I did was to consider the debunkers' claim that R is not the answer by looking up what literature exists and posting a sample of those books. The fact that I wrote a title which said "many experts doubt E/R" means that I am citing people who are dissenters and NOT that I am siding with either side. I have explained this position several times and some people are having a hard time differentiating "an _advocate_ of one position" from "a listing of numerous authors who question one position." My intentions were to find out what reactions there would be on the NG to the contrarian position that E/R have shortcomings/limitations/or alternative interpretations. I did enjoy seeing the large spectrum of responses. And, to make a reiteration, I'm inserting my original file, again, below. I hope you can read the second sentence which says we have two schools of thought....etc. I hope when you re-read the third sentence that you do NOT interpret "doubt" as meaning the same thing as "proof". The word "doubt" expresses a _reservation_ rather than a _compelling conviction_. > Regards, > Martin Brown > ========================================= Was Einstein right or wrong? What we have are two schools of thought: i) Einstein did something, vs. ii) a bunch of experts/skeptics who think Einstein made a lot of noise, more heat than light, and fooled a lot of people. Here, below, are many more books which cast much doubt on Einstein's "contributions"...... (all dug up by searches on Amazon.com under: au=einstein) Note that most of these books were written in the last decade or two. If we do a search going back to the beginnings of SR, GR, then I'm sure there will be found many many dozens of books written by equally smart people who challenge and/or do not accept Einstein. I think it would be foolish to think the story is over, final, and finished. //////////////////////////////////////// Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius [Paperback] Hans C. Ohanian (Author) ================================ Einstein's Greatest Mistake: Abandonment of the Aether by Sid Deutsch ================================================== Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary? by, Tom Bethell Review.... That a book by a great and established writer like Tom Bethell, who is a long-time science writer and political columnist at The American Spectator, hasn't been officially reviewed yet, says more about those who pose as the intellectual and editorial guardians of literature than it does about the quality of this book or the stature of its author. In fact, it is an engaging, well researched book about one of the most interesting paradigm struggles of the twentieth century (and still ongoing today). That Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity (SR) was influenced by and made quickly popular by the relativistic ideologies of its time (1905) seems to this writer a foregone conclusion. But it was the Michelson-Morley experiment that failed to detect a "luminiferous ether," which gave SR scientific credibility. But Michelson himself soon doubted its conclusions and proved it in the later Michelson-Gale experiment which did detect an ether. H. Lorentz, a contemporary of Einstein, and a scientist of equal stature, argued in numerous debates with Einstein that all "relativistic effects" (such as the bending of starlight as it passes near the sun) were the result of light traveling through an "entrained ether" which surrounds and moves with planetary bodies--otherwise known as the gravitational field. Other well-known physicists of the day also doubted the veracity of SR, especially its principle of space-time distortion. A few were: Herbert Dingle, whose "paradox" asked the question of which "clock" would run slow (and thus experience time dilation predicted by SR) of two relativistic travelers; as for example two rocket ships in different inertial frames (i.e., going at different speeds relative to each other). Another physicist, H. Ives, of the famous Ives-Stillwell experiment to test the Doppler effect of fast moving mesons, became a lifelong enemy of Einstein because he felt that his results were being misinterpreted. And there were many others who disagreed with Einstein's fundamental conclusions. Even Einstein himself, as Bethell points out, later in life admitted that forces propagating through empty space without a medium in which they could be conveyed, was a logical absurdity--a fact never mentioned in textbooks, or in other "easy Einstein" books. In the later part of the twentieth century, other scientific critics picked up where Lorentz and his contemporaries had left off. Among them were Tom Van Flandern, Carver Mead, and Petr Beckmann. Bethell concentrates on Beckmann's critique, written in a technical book called Einstein Plus Two, in which the author claims that all the effects of both Special and General Relativity can be explained using classical physics. Bethell brings Beckmann's book down to earth from the arcane heights of Mt. Olympus by rendering Beckmann's mathematical descriptions understandable to the layman. If you are interested in the history of one of the most pivotal scientific ideas of our time, if you have always believed that the world should make sense but would still like to know about the mysteries of relativity, this book may be for you. And this reviewer might add that although Bethell might not know it yet, this may be his most significant book. ===================================================== Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories by Al Kelly review... Al Kelly is right, July 3, 2009 By Alvin D. Heindel "another patent examiner" (USA) - See all my reviews This review is from: Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity Theories (Paperback) Al Kelly should be commended for his courage in standing up to the Einsteinian science mafia. The twin paradox proves Einsteinian relativity is impossible. Einstein's theories should be called absolutivity which is another logical contradiction. It was created when scientists believed in the steady state theory of the universe. Now that scientists accept Hubble's big bang theory and the fact that the earth's velocity has been measured relative to the cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the big bang, it shows you can measure an absolute velocity based on Einstein's theories. Also, scientists believe there's nothing outside the event horizon around our universe. This provides us with another means for measuring a velocity relative to a point in space which is an absolute velocity based on Einstein's theories. Obviously, space and aether are infinite and gravity is an aether density gradient, not curved space. Kelly doesn't mention G. BURNISTON BROWN's discussion of the twin paradox in the Bulletin of the Institute of Physics and Physical Society, Vol. 18 (March, 1967) pp. 71--77, easily found on the internet. He provides another good anti-Einstein argument based on the twin paradox. I tend to think H. A. Lorentz's theory might be the best one. Also, Einstein insisted relativity depends on the existence of the aether which is denied by the physics establishment. SRT depends on the existence of the aether, the same way Newtonian relativity depends on the existence of space. In Lorentz's theory, the aether is NOT at absolute rest. A. J. Kox gives a translation of one paragraph from one of Lorentz's articles: 37 It should be emphasized that LORENTZ did not adhere to the idea of absolute space. In LORENTZ (1895) (sect. 2), for instance, he states that it is meaningless to talk about absolute rest of the ether and that the expression 'the ether is at rest' only means that the different parts of the ether do not move with respect to each other (AHESc-1988 pages 67-78). This is given as a reference: 1895 Versuch einer Theorie der electrischen und optischen Erscheinungen in bewegten Körpern (Leiden: Brill, 1895); repr. in CP, Vol. 5, pp. 1-138. The 1906 reprint can be downloaded from Google books. ======================================================== Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist by Christopher Jon Bjerknes (Paperback - July 2002) ====================================== Einstein's Riddle: Riddles, Paradoxes, and Conundrums to Stretch Your Mind by Jeremy Stangroom (Hardcover - Apr. 28, 2009) ================================================= Reinventing Gravity: A Physicist Goes Beyond Einstein by John W. Moffat (Hardcover - Sept. 30, 2008) ==================================== What Einstein Did Not See: Redefining Time to Understand Space by Thomas W. Sills (Paperback - June 1, 2009) ============================================= Einstein's Greatest Blunder?: The Cosmological Constant and Other Fudge Factors in the Physics of the Universe (Questions of Science) by Donald Goldsmith (Paperback - Oct. 15, 1997) ============================================= Dialog About Objections Against the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein (Paperback - Nov. 12, 2009) ============================================================ The Quantum Theory of Planck, Einstein, Bohr and Sommerfeld: Its Foundation and the Rise of Its Difficulties 1900-1925 1 (The Historical Development of ... and the Rise of Its Difficulties 1900-1925) by Jagdish Mehra and H. Rechenberg (Paperback - Dec. 28, 2000) ====================================== The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers: A Counter-Revolution in Physics by Dean Turner; Richard Hazelett (Paperback - Oct. 1, 2005) ========================================================== Einstein on Trial or Metaphysical Principles of Natural Philosophy by Jorge Cespedes-Cure (Paperback - July 1, 2002) ======================================================= Einstein as Myth and Muse by Alan J. Friedman and Carol C. Donley (Paperback - Apr. 28, 1989) ======================================== Space, Time, And Matter And The Falsity of Einstein's Theory Of Relativity (Paperback) ~ Kamen George Kamenov (Author), Kamen G. Kamenov (Illustrator 1 of 2 people found the following review helpful: A classic book.!!!, December 4, 2008 By Peter Stone (USA) - See all my reviews This review is from: Space, Time, And Matter And The Falsity of Einstein's Theory Of Relativity (Paperback) In 1972 the famous British professor Herbert Dingle, an ex-relativist who turned into antirelativist, published a book against relativity titled: Science at the crossroads. Because of that he was gradually removed from the "scientiffic" establishment. Kamen Kamenov's book is one of the books, alongside those of Herbert Dingle, Harald Nordenson and Henri Bergson, highly recommendable to those who really want to understand how incurably flawed and useless the "theory" in question is and why it should be abandoned in its entirety. Some books are hard to find. Look in "bookfinder.com" and read about the above mentionned autors in Wikipedia. 7 of 12 people found the following review helpful: A revolutionary new book !, May 30, 2001 By Robert (Berkeley,California) - See all my reviews This review is from: Space, Time and Matter, and the Falsity of Einstein's Theory of Relativity (Paperback) Provocative and fascinating. Mr. Kamenov provides the clearest possible nonmathematical explanation of the present day understanding of the theory of relativity and then unmistakably disproves it. His logic is undeniable . I think that after reading the book nobody can believe in the validity of the theory of relatvity any longer but quite the opposite is true,the theory is wrong. Mr. Kamenov explains in plain langauge the real nature of relity and offers alternative solution to the theory of relativity. He proves the existence of ether. The book deals not only with theory of relativity but also with the philosophy of space, time and physical matter and explains in a plain , nonmathematical way the nature of electricity , magnetism and gravitation. This book is realy easy to understand but it requires an abstract thinking . It is a great exercise for the mind and Mr. Kamenov is a great mind. I read the book several times and every time it was even more interesting. I could not stop reading it. I believe that this book will revolutionize the modern science. It is a real treasure. ============================= Einstein, the Aether & Variable Rest Mass (Paperback) ~ Jack Heighway (Author) ================================= Einstein's Relativity Theory: Correct, Paradoxical, and Wrong by Lyubomir, T. Gruyitch (Hardcover - Dec. 6, 2006) ////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////
From: Sue... on 6 Jun 2010 15:11 On Jun 6, 2:40 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: ============= > > > Once I could derive the Einstein-Lorentz equations from the basic axioms I > > was happy that the things did exactly what was claimed. > =============== > Well, my positions is that I need to do something like that before I can > be happy as you became happy. Simply use a modern derivation: http://meshula.net/wordpress/?p=222 ....And modern statements: << Einstein's relativity principle states that: All inertial frames are totally equivalent for the performance of all physical experiments. In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html [1]<< the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the theory of relativity, in its most essential formal properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. In order to give due prominence to this relationship, however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary magnitude sqrt(-1) ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as the three space co-ordinates. >> http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments which involve measuring the force of attraction between two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html ....And ignore all the objective answers to your subjective question because the writers can't have done much reading. ;-) Sue... > Until then, my position is that there are > two schools of thought and YOU, the reader or anyone else, needs to be > aware of the counter-arguments and be prepared to defend YOUR position > (because THEY are certanly defending the counter-position). > > Martin Brown > >
From: Edward Green on 6 Jun 2010 16:12 On Jun 2, 7:44 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bru...(a)gmail.com> wrote: <...> > If the equations are the same the "what REALLY happens" is just > philosophy or religion. I don't agree. "What we think really happens" conditions where the next advance is looked for. Call it what you will, humans are prone to interpret equations, and what we interpret will shape the form (or form the shape ;-) of further progress. Therefore it's worthwhile to try to understand what's behind the equations -- those that don't bother at best will make progress within the paradigm, but never discover the next one.
From: Koobee Wublee on 6 Jun 2010 16:15 On Jun 6, 1:31 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Laugh this off: > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/ The paper is sprouting with more lies, more mysticisms, and more nonsense. How GPS works requires no relativistic effect from SR or GR. However, if considered, they can be very easily implemented. The author obviously does not know what is at stake. <laughter> The following equation can never be derived from SR. One can only do so from the geodesic equations. ** m' = m c^2 / sqrt(1 - v^2 / c^2) Also, the equation does not exist from the redefinition of mass suggested by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. <more laughter> There is just way too much bullshit in that short article. <ROTFL>
From: Me, ...again! on 6 Jun 2010 16:51
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010, Sue... wrote: > On Jun 6, 2:40 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > ============= > >> >>> Once I could derive the Einstein-Lorentz equations from the basic axioms I >>> was happy that the things did exactly what was claimed. >> > =============== > >> Well, my positions is that I need to do something like that before I can >> be happy as you became happy. > > Simply use a modern derivation: > http://meshula.net/wordpress/?p=222 > > ...And modern statements: > << Einstein's relativity principle states that: > > All inertial frames are totally equivalent > for the performance of all physical experiments. > > In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical > experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense > between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's > laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames. > Einstein generalized[1] this result in his special theory of > relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take the > same form in all inertial frames. >> > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > [1]<< the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the > theory of relativity, in its most essential formal > properties, shows a pronounced relationship to the > three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space. > In order to give due prominence to this relationship, > however, we must replace the usual time co-ordinate t by > an imaginary magnitude > > sqrt(-1) > > ct proportional to it. Under these conditions, the > natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) > theory of relativity assume mathematical forms, in which > the time co-ordinate plays exactly the same rôle as > the three space co-ordinates. >> > http://www.bartleby.com/173/17.html > > << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which > can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments > which involve measuring the force of attraction between > two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying > wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments > must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all > inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the > same in all inertial frames. >> So, if my inertial frame is going to the left at the speed of light, and we launch a beam of photos to the right from that inertial frame, then some photons might drop into my paper bag like marbles? I'll give you a return wink ( ;-) ) in advance. (wink, wink) > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > ...And ignore all the objective answers to your subjective question > because the writers can't have done much reading. ;-) All the reading I did recently was of what those writers of responses said. All I was looking for was what I got: a spectrum of responses. I'm happy to report that I think none of them were brain-dead. Perhaps all of them were also pretty opinionated, too. Thank you for the other material. > Sue... > >> Until then, my position is that there are >> two schools of thought and YOU, the reader or anyone else, needs to be >> aware of the counter-arguments and be prepared to defend YOUR position >> (because THEY are certanly defending the counter-position). > >>> Martin Brown >> >> > > |