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: PD on 17 Jun 2010 14:01 On Jun 14, 5:15 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 1:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 1, 10:59 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote: > > > > I gather from the context that you believe that Einstein's Special and > > > > General Theory of Relativity are wrong. > > > > > What do you think of Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect > > > > (which was instrumental in thedevelopment of Quantum Mechanics, and for which > > > > he earned a Nobel prize), and Einstein's modelling of Brownian motion (which > > > > virtually created the whole field of statistical mechanics) ? > > > > > Was he wrong about them as well? > > > > 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. > > > I really don't care much for schools of thought. After all, there is > > still a substantial school of thought that the earth is 6600 years > > old, but that doesn't mean its existence automatically earns it any > > credibility. > > > I'm much more interested in understanding WHY those people in the anti- > > Einstein school of thought feel that way. > > Some candidate ideas: > > - The theory is wrong, because it makes no sense to these people, and > > these people firmly believe that unless a theory makes sense, it > > cannot possibly be considered right. > > No the theory calls the absolute rest frame as an inertial frame and > then turn around and deny the existence of an absolute rest frame. > > Ken Seto > It does no such thing. It says the properties of the inertial frame are identical to what YOU think the properties of an absolute frame has. But YOU are the ONLY one that believes the absolute frame is the one frame that has those properties. It is the mixing of what you have heard about SR with what you make up from your own head that makes you confused.
From: kenseto on 22 Jun 2010 18:06
On Jun 15, 6:40 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010, kenseto wrote: > > On Jun 2, 1:05 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 1, 10:59 pm, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote: > > >>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote: > >>>> I gather from the context that you believe that Einstein's Special and > >>>> General Theory of Relativity are wrong. > > >>>> What do you think of Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect > >>>> (which was instrumental in thedevelopment of Quantum Mechanics, and for which > >>>> he earned a Nobel prize), and Einstein's modelling of Brownian motion (which > >>>> virtually created the whole field of statistical mechanics) ? > > >>>> Was he wrong about them as well? > > >>> 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. > > >> I really don't care much for schools of thought. After all, there is > >> still a substantial school of thought that the earth is 6600 years > >> old, but that doesn't mean its existence automatically earns it any > >> credibility. > > >> I'm much more interested in understanding WHY those people in the anti- > >> Einstein school of thought feel that way. > >> Some candidate ideas: > >> - The theory is wrong, because it makes no sense to these people, and > >> these people firmly believe that unless a theory makes sense, it > >> cannot possibly be considered right. > > > No the theory calls the absolute rest frame as an inertial frame and > > then turn around and deny the existence of an absolute rest frame. > > > Ken Seto > > I am just interested to learn that there are more people than I thought > who object to Einstein and Relativity. The booklist is larger than I > thought.... > > Was Einstein right or wrong? SR is not wrong.....SR is incomplete. The reason is that the Principle of Relativity asserts that all inertial frames are equivalent (including the absolute rest frame). This allows every SR observer to use the absolute rest frame to derive its math .....also it allows every SR observer to assume the exclusive properties of the preferred frame which are: all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all the meter sticks moving wrt him have a shorter geometric projection length than the observer's meter stick and the geometric projection length of the observer's meter stick is assumed to be its physical length. LET also use the preferred frame to derive its math and that's why SR and LET have the same math. In real life all the objects in the universal are in a state of absolute motion and thus an observer cannot calim that he is in a state of absolute rest. That means that he does not know if an observed clock is runing slow or fast compared to his clock. That's why every observer must include both possibilities that an observed clock can run fast or slow com[pared to the observer's clock. IRT is a new theory of relativty that includes both possibilities and therefore it a complete theory of relativty. IRT includes SRT and LET as subsets. However, unlike SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all environments, including gravity, IRT is described in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf Also visit my website for more papers on my theory: http://www.modelmechanics.org/ Ken Seto > > 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 ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |