If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




Einstein's Empirical "Theory"
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/01...ghtandwrong/
"In 1917 Einstein published a paper on the application of the theory of relativity to the universe at largeâ€”cosmology. He had decided that the universe was stationaryâ€”neither expanding nor contractingâ€”so he added a term, the cosmological constant, to his original equations with a value of the constant, the Î› in the above equation, chosen to guarantee this. He abandoned this once it was shown in the 1920s by Edwin Hubble that the universe was actually expanding. Now it has been shown that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rateâ€”so the cosmological term is given a new value, the dark energy, now adjusted to produce the acceleration." Typical empirical approach isn't it? Unlike special relativity, general relativity was not, to use Einstein's words, "built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions". Rather, it was "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: 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 socalled axioms." The making of general relativity was analogous to "curve fitting" ("empirical models") as defined he http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/docum...ve_Fitting.pdf "The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property." Note that the parameters of the empirical model "do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property". So in Einstein's general relativity one of the parameters  the speed of light falling towards the source of gravity  absurdly DECREASES (in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, 2g): http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached." http://www.speedlight.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+Ï†/c^2) where Ï† is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s601/601.htm "Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential Ï† would be c(1+Ï†/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+Ï†. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2Ï†, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term." Here Michel Janssen describes endless empirical fudging and fitting until "excellent agreement with observation" was reached: http://www.weylmann.com/besso.pdf Michel Janssen: "But  as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907  one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. (...) The EinsteinGrossmann theory  also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper  is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field  or, as we would now say, the inertiogravitational field  should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the socalled metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertiogravitational field.. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. (...) Einstein did not give up the EinsteinGrossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. (...) On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the EinsteinGrossmann Ã©quations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the EinsteinGrossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation." Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




Einstein's Empirical "Theory"
The PoundRebka experiment is compatible with Newton's emission theory of light where there is no gravitational time dilation and light falls like ordinary falling bodies (in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is g):
http://www.einsteinonline.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests  the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift , you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 196065 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/...ctures/l13.pdf University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." But the PoundRebka experiment is also compatible with Einstein's general relativity where there IS gravitational time dilation and light falls like.... like what, Einsteinians? Yes, compatibility is only possible if, in general relativity, the speed of light falling towards the source of gravity idiotically DECREASES (in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, 2g): http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached." http://www.speedlight.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+Ï†/c^2) where Ï† is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s601/601.htm "Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential Ï† would be c(1+Ï†/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+Ï†. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2Ï†, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term." Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
EINSTEIN'S EMPIRICAL "THEORY"  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  August 27th 15 04:52 PM 
HOW EINSTEIN'S THEORY "WORKS"  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  December 14th 13 02:46 PM 
chapt20 "pi" and "e" explained #216 Atom Totality theory  Archimedes Plutonium[_2_]  Astronomy Misc  1  December 24th 09 07:46 AM 
" Universe matter develop equation" must replace "The theory of relativity" finally  xszxsz  Science  0  October 28th 04 08:54 AM 
" Universe matter develop equation" must replace "The theory of relatively" finally  xszxsz  Research  0  October 27th 04 06:34 AM 