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 3 Jun 2010 07:29


On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, mpc755 wrote:

> On Jun 2, 11:16 pm, "Peter Webb"
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>> I think it will be a very long time before a space ship goes out at high
>>>> speed and comes back with the passenger being younger than his brother
>>>> left behind.
>>
>> Far from being a very long time, this experiment has already been done many
>> times using aircraft. And yes, the twin clock does return younger than the
>> stay-at-home clock, by exactly the amount predicted by relativity.
>>
>> That's one of the many, many experimental tests that Relativity has been
>> subjected to, and all of which it has passed. That's why physicists believe
>> it to be correct, because its predictions are borne out by physical
>> experiment.
>
> You are mistaking atomic clocks for brothers. An atomic clock ticks
> based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. One brother at zero
> G's and the other on the Earth is a completely different situation.
> Comparing atomic clocks to brother's is more of the ridiculous
> nonsense associated with 'mainstream' physics.
>
> There is a space ship orbiting the Earth very quickly. The astronaut
> determines where the space ship and the Earth are relative to the Sun.
> The astronaut continually checks where the space ship and the Earth
> are relative to the Sun. When the space ship and the Earth are in the
> closest possible location relative to the Sun based upon the distant
> stars the astronaut determines one year has passed. If the atomic
> clock on the space ship does not agree with this conclusion then the
> atomic clock did not 'tick' at the correct rate.
>

Good point.
From: PD on 3 Jun 2010 07:34
On Jun 3, 6:23 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote:
> >>> I think it will be a very long time before a space ship goes out at high
> >>> speed and comes back with the passenger being younger than his brother
> >>> left behind.
>
> > Far from being a very long time, this experiment has already been done many
> > times using aircraft. And yes, the twin clock does return younger than the
> > stay-at-home clock, by exactly the amount predicted by relativity.
>
> > That's one of the many, many experimental tests that Relativity has been
> > subjected to, and all of which it has passed. That's why physicists believe
> > it to be correct, because its predictions are borne out by physical
> > experiment.
>
> My understanding is that there are alternative explanations for the
> measured effects.
>

No, that's not quite accurate.

I'll explain this schematically.
Relativity accurate predicts experimental results A, B, C, D, E, and
F, say.
There have been suggestions made about how A could be explained by
model M1, B could be explained by model M2, C could be explained by
model M3, D could be explained by model M4, and so on. But having six
ad hoc models rather than one that explains all six is not considered
a superior solution. Furthermore, model M1 would also imply
experimental results G' and H', which have not been observed, and
model M2 would imply experimental results I' and J', which are
directly counter to actual measurements.

There is no successful model or even short list of models that would
explain the results that relativity has explained.

PD
From: PD on 3 Jun 2010 07:53
On Jun 3, 6:28 am, "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2010, Peter Webb wrote:
>
> > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1dfb7710-9c79-4d74-b0a9-6f263afe872a(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jun 2, 7:22 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >> "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:Pine.BSF.4.61.1006020714190.11116(a)osmium.mv.net...
>
> >> > I wrote a long extended response to "PD" and I'll refer you to that.
>
> >> > It has been decades since I studied these phenomena and read/learned >
> >> from
> >> > classes and books. I switched to biology long ago and can speak with
> >> > authority in the field I specialized in, membrane biophysics.
>
> >> > I do not mean to castigate Einstein, but rather to recognize that a lot >
> >> of
> >> > very bright people who know a lot more than I do about the subject are
> >> > trying to say that Einstein is getting more credit and attention than he
> >> > deserves.
>
> >> Who?
>
> >> Some other nutter?
>
> >> What public figure or scientist in the last 50 years has said that Einstein
> >> is getting more credit than he deserves for his contribution to physics?
>
> >> And do you think that Einstein gets enough credit for his explanation of
> >> (say) the photo-electric effect? I bet not one person in 100 would know
> >> that
> >> this paper oh is was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.
> >> Nobody gives him any credit for that. And I bet that not one person in a
> >> thousand would be aware that his explanation of Brownian motion created the
> >> field of statistical mechanics.
>
> >> He seems to get a lot less credit for these other things than he deserves,
> >> wouldn't you agree?
>
> > AE won the Nobel Prize for
>
> > He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to
> > Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of
> > the photoelectric effect."[3] - Wikipedia
>
> > Actually I could say that it does not matter if he is right or wrong
> > or was right or wrong or whatever, His theory is ingrained into the
> > fabric of modern day science, it is a tradition and a doctrine, a
> > change to which will require millions of years of scientific
> > evolution.
>
> > ___________________________
>
> > The question was whether he received too much credit for those discoveries.
> > Given that almost nobody outside the physics community knows about his huge
> > contributions to QM, statistical mechanics and other parts of physics I think
> > the answer is pretty obviously "no". Einstein clearly receives too little
> > credit for the work he did outside of Relativity theory.
>
> > You can help in this. Whenever you discuss Einstein's contributions to
> > Relativity theory, it would be helpful if you also pointed out his
> > contributions to other parts of physics. Credit where credit is due, after
> > all.
>
> The simplest response I could give was what I did do. In response to what
> looked like too much credit, I listed the books written by other experts
> who doubted Einstein. I found more books than I thought I would find.
>
> Here they are again, with some excerpts:
>
> 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)
>
> //////////////////////////////////////////////////
> /////////////////////////////////////
>
>

I'm not quite sure what you're after here. It kind of sounds like
you'd like to know if there is a response to these reviews.
I can tell you that the authors of the reviews themselves are clearly
neither active scientists nor familiar with relativity. But I don't
know if that matters to you or not. Would a detailed rebuttal of the
reviews of books make a difference?

PD
From: Me, ...again! on 3 Jun 2010 07:58


On Wed, 2 Jun 2010, PD wrote:

> On Jun 2, 10:20 pm, "Peter Webb"
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1dfb7710-9c79-4d74-b0a9-6f263afe872a(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jun 2, 7:22 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Me, ...again!" <arthu...(a)mv.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> news:Pine.BSF.4.61.1006020714190.11116(a)osmium.mv.net...
>>
>>>> I wrote a long extended response to "PD" and I'll refer you to that.
>>
>>>> It has been decades since I studied these phenomena and read/learned
>>>> from
>>>> classes and books. I switched to biology long ago and can speak with
>>>> authority in the field I specialized in, membrane biophysics.
>>
>>>> I do not mean to castigate Einstein, but rather to recognize that a lot
>>>> of
>>>> very bright people who know a lot more than I do about the subject are
>>>> trying to say that Einstein is getting more credit and attention than he
>>>> deserves.
>>
>>> Who?
>>
>>> Some other nutter?
>>
>>> What public figure or scientist in the last 50 years has said that
>>> Einstein
>>> is getting more credit than he deserves for his contribution to physics?
>>
>>> And do you think that Einstein gets enough credit for his explanation of
>>> (say) the photo-electric effect? I bet not one person in 100 would know
>>> that
>>> this paper oh is was instrumental in the development of quantum mechanics.
>>> Nobody gives him any credit for that. And I bet that not one person in a
>>> thousand would be aware that his explanation of Brownian motion created
>>> the
>>> field of statistical mechanics.
>>
>>> He seems to get a lot less credit for these other things than he deserves,
>>> wouldn't you agree?
>>
>> AE won the Nobel Prize for
>>
>> He received the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to
>> Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of
>> the photoelectric effect."[3] - Wikipedia
>>
>> Actually I could say that it does not matter if he is right or wrong
>> or was right or wrong or whatever, His theory is ingrained into the
>> fabric of modern day science, it is a tradition and a doctrine, a
>> change to which will require millions of years of scientific
>> evolution.
>>
>> ___________________________
>>
>> The question was whether he received too much credit for those discoveries.
>> Given that almost nobody outside the physics community knows about his huge
>> contributions to QM, statistical mechanics and other parts of physics I
>> think the answer is pretty obviously "no". Einstein clearly receives too
>> little credit for the work he did outside of Relativity theory.
>>
>> You can help in this. Whenever you discuss Einstein's contributions to
>> Relativity theory, it would be helpful if you also pointed out his
>> contributions to other parts of physics. Credit where credit is due, after
>> all.
>
> I completely agree. And among PHYSICISTS, he does get credit where
> credit is due. This is to be contrasted with the noise that is
> generated about Einstein on the shelves of Barnes and Noble.
>
> There are lots and lots of books about Einstein and Feynman and
> Darwin, because they were colorful characters as much as because of
> their (selected) contributions to science. But that's to appeal to the
> lay public, and toward the purpose of scientifically balanced
> presentation.
>

Yes.
From: Peter Webb on 3 Jun 2010 08:16
> Actually I could say that it does not matter if he is right or wrong
> or was right or wrong or whatever, His theory is ingrained into the
> fabric of modern day science, it is a tradition and a doctrine, a
> change to which will require millions of years of scientific
> evolution.
>
> ___________________________
>
> The question was whether he received too much credit for those
> discoveries.
> Given that almost nobody outside the physics community knows about his
> huge
> contributions to QM, statistical mechanics and other parts of physics I
> think
> the answer is pretty obviously "no". Einstein clearly receives too little
> credit for the work he did outside of Relativity theory.
>
> You can help in this. Whenever you discuss Einstein's contributions to
> Relativity theory, it would be helpful if you also pointed out his
> contributions to other parts of physics. Credit where credit is due, after
> all.

The simplest response I could give was what I did do. In response to what
looked like too much credit, I listed the books written by other experts
who doubted Einstein. I found more books than I thought I would find.

______________________________________
How does the fact that people doubt some aspect of Einstein's work provide
evidence that he got too much credit? All of the work of Newton was
completely superceded by the work of others who followed, but that does not
in any way diminish the credit he should receive. Relativity is fact our
second oldest surving piece of core physics - only Maxwell's
electromagnetism is older - the credit that is afforded to Einstein should
increase each year as it has now been 104 years without a single
experimental disproof, a very long lived theory.


Here they are again, with some excerpts:

_________________________________
Really, don't bother. Firstly, in that people have doubts about Relativity
after more than 100 years is hardly evidence that he is over-rated as a
physicist, which is the actual claim you made. Secondly, every single one of
those links you provided related to his works on Relativity, yet his
contributions to Quantum Mechanics and elsewhere were also huge, yet he
seems to get no credit for them. Don't you think he deserves to be credited
more for the other theories he developed?


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
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