A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

THE END OF EINSTEIN'S ERA



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 15th 15, 07:48 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default THE END OF EINSTEIN'S ERA

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ged-the-world/
Brian Greene in Scientific American: "Albert Einstein once said that there are only two things that might be infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And, he confessed, he wasn't sure about the universe. When we hear that, we chuckle."

Why do Einsteinians chuckle? John Barrow FRS explains:

http://plus.maths.org/issue37/featur...ein/index.html
John Barrow FRS: "Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of his work for the ordinary person: "Does it make a silly impression on me, here and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the colour and the appeal of the mysterious." Relativity was a fashionable notion. It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away with old conventions and standards. All things were being made new. Einstein's relativity suited the mood. Nobody got very excited about Einstein's brownian motion or his photoelectric effect but relativity promised to turn the world inside out."

How did relativity turn the world inside out? Initially Einstein introduced his false constant-speed-of-light postulate, a tenet of the ether theory, even though in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment had refuted this tenet and confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

Then Einstein drew an invalid conclusion (non sequitur) from his false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

See the valid conclusions (fatal for Einstein's relativity) and direct refutations of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate in my comments on Brian Greene's paper referred to above:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ged-the-world/
Brian Greene, How Einstein Changed the World

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old September 17th 15, 08:01 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default THE END OF EINSTEIN'S ERA

Einstein's general relativity should be immediately discarded - it is nothing but an empirical model based on a wrong concept of time (see my comments on the paper):

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...special-issue/
100 Years of General Relativity: Scientific American Special Issue

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old September 18th 15, 11:15 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default THE END OF EINSTEIN'S ERA

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900
New Scientist 2013: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? (....) Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century. According to his special theory of relativity, there is no way to specify events that everyone can agree happen simultaneously. Two events that are both "now" to you will happen at different times for anyone moving at another speed.. Other people will see a different now that might contain elements of yours – but equally might not. "You can define it, but people won't necessarily agree," says physicist Sean Carroll of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. The result is a picture known as the block universe: the universe seen from that impossible vantage point outside space and time. You can by all means mark what you think is "now" with a red dot, but there is nothing that distinguishes that place from any other, except that you are there. Past and future are no more physically distinguished than left and right. There are things that are closer to you in time, and things that are further away, just as there are things that are near or far away in space. But the idea that time flows past you is just as absurd as the suggestion that space does. George Ellis, a cosmologist at the University of Cape Town, South Africa, does not buy any of that. The block universe contradicts every single experience we have, he says."

https://www.newscientist.com/article...wards-in-time/
New Scientist 2015: "[George] Ellis is up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity. It revealed that there's no such thing as objective simultaneity. Although you might have seen three things happen in a particular order – 
A, then B, then C – someone moving 
at a different velocity could have seen 
it a different way – C, then B, then A. 
In other words, without simultaneity there is no way of specifying what things happened "now". And if not "now", what is moving through time? Rescuing an objective "now" is a daunting task."

George Ellis is a high priest in Einsteiniana, and he is "up against one of the most successful theories in physics: special relativity". That's the end of Einstein's era, isn't it?

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ALBERT EINSTEIN INSTITUTE DEBUNKS EINSTEIN Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 July 12th 15 09:47 PM
EINSTEIN 1918 CONTRADICTS EINSTEIN 1905 Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 July 27th 14 09:45 PM
THE ALBERT EINSTEIN INSTITUTE REFUTES ALBERT EINSTEIN Tonico Astronomy Misc 0 April 1st 12 01:21 PM
Next Einstein Giovanni Amelino-Camelia against Original Einstein(Divine Albert) Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 October 25th 11 01:00 AM
Einstein was an atheist. ACTUALLY EINSTEIN WAS AN IDIOT 46erjoe Misc 964 March 10th 07 07:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.