![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Can one introduce a fudge factor analogous to the cosmological constant in Lorentz transformation equations? One cannot, and the reason is simple: Special relativity is DEDUCTIVE (even though a false assumption and an invalid argument have spoiled it from the very beginning) and fudging is impossible by definition - one has no right to introduce anything that does not follow from the postulates.
The only alternative to deductive theory is empirical concoction (a "theory" that is not even wrong) - Einstein clearly explains this he https://www.marxists.org/reference/a...ative/ap03.htm Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison.. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms." Special relativity was indeed "built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions" but general relativity was, to use Einstein's words, "a purely empirical enterprise". Einstein and his mathematical friends changed and fudged equations countless times until "a classified catalogue" was compiled where known in advance results and pet assumptions (such as the Mercury's precession, the equivalence principle, gravitational time dilation) coexisted in an apparently consistent manner. Being an empirical concoction, general relativity allows Einsteinians to introduce, change and withdraw fudge factors until the "theory" manages to predict anything Einsteinians want. Then the prediction turns out to be confirmed by observations (surprise surprise). The fudge-factor activity is inglorious and Einsteinians don't discuss it openly, but sometimes the truth comes out inadvertently. So conventional dark matter models based on general relativity "need four free parameters to be adjusted to explain the data" (how many fudge factors LIGO conspirators needed in order to model the nonexistent gravitational waves is a deep mystery): https://www.newscientist.com/article...f-dark-matter/ "Verlinde's calculations fit the new study's observations without resorting to free parameters – essentially values that can be tweaked at will to make theory and observation match. By contrast, says Brouwer, conventional dark matter models need four free parameters to be adjusted to explain the data." Being an empirical concoction, Einstein's general relativity has no postulates: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-p...ral-Relativity What are the postulates of General Relativity? Alexander Poltorak, Adjunct Professor of Physics at the CCNY: "In 2005 I started writing a paper, "The Four Cornerstones of General Relativity on which it doesn't Rest." Unfortunately, I never had a chance to finish it. The idea behind that unfinished article was this: there are four principles that are often described as "postulates" of General Relativity: 1. Principle of general relativity 2. Principle of general covariance 3. Equivalence principle 4. Mach principle The truth is, however, that General Relativity is not really based on any of these "postulates" although, without a doubt, they played important heuristic roles in the development of the theory." [end of quotation] Sometimes silly Einsteinians call the final equations of general relativity "postulates": http://math.stanford.edu/~schoen/tri.../lecture_3.pdf "Postulates of General Relativity Postulate 1: A spacetime (M^4, g) is a Riemannian 4-manifold M^4 with a Lorentzian metric g. Postulate 2: A test mass beginning at rest moves along a timelike geodesic. (Geodesic equation) ... Postulate 3: Einstein equation is satisfied. (Einstein equation) ..." [end of quotation] Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Einstein's Fudge Factors | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | December 16th 16 09:14 PM |
Einstein used the wrong equations for relativity | Koobee Wublee | Astronomy Misc | 3 | March 26th 13 12:31 AM |
THE SPECIAL RELATIVITY FUDGE | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 2 | February 21st 13 03:59 PM |
The Pants Fudge Parade | Pat Flannery | Policy | 0 | March 7th 09 07:11 AM |
The Pants Fudge Parade | Pat Flannery | History | 0 | March 7th 09 07:11 AM |