|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY UNBEARABLE
Einstein's relativity is getting unbearable, even inside Einsteiniana.
The rallying cry seems to be: "Back to Newton through Lorentz!" http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim.../dp/0415701740 Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy) "Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity, and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and physics. There is no other book like this available; hence philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its publication." "UNFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL." Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo- Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is uniquely decomposable into space and time." http://www.amazon.co.uk/Physical-Rel.../dp/0199275831 "Harvey Brown thinks that most philsophers are confused about relativity. Most centrally, he thinks they're confused about the relativistic effects of length contraction and time dilation. (...) Physical Relativity explores the nature of the distinction at the heart of Einstein's 1905 formulation of his special theory of relativity: that between kinematics and dynamics. Einstein himself became increasingly uncomfortable with this distinction, and with the limitations of what he called the 'principle theory' approach inspired by the logic of thermodynamics. A handful of physicists and philosophers have over the last century likewise expressed doubts about Einstein's treatment of the relativistic behaviour of rigid bodies and clocks in motion in the kinematical part of his great paper, and suggested that THE DYNAMICAL UNDERSTANDING OF LENGTH CONTRACTION AND TIME DILATION INTIMATED BY THE IMMEDIATE PRECURSORS OF EINSTEIN IS MORE FUNDAMENTAL." http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory since its passage has not been captured within modern physical theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us. How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion, an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four- dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time." http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...me-an-illusion Craig Callender: "Einstein mounted the next assault by doing away with the idea of absolute simultaneity. According to his special theory of relativity, what events are happening at the same time depends on how fast you are going. The true arena of events is not time or space, but their union: spacetime. Two observers moving at different velocities disagree on when and where an event occurs, but they agree on its spacetime location. Space and time are secondary concepts that, as mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who had been one of Einstein's university professors, famously declared, "are doomed to fade away into mere shadows." And things only get worse in 1915 with Einstein's general theory of relativity, which extends special relativity to situations where the force of gravity operates. Gravity distorts time, so that a second's passage here may not mean the same thing as a second's passage there. Only in rare cases is it possible to synchronize clocks and have them stay synchronized, even in principle. You cannot generally think of the world as unfolding, tick by tick, according to a single time parameter. In extreme situations, the world might not be carvable into instants of time at all. It then becomes impossible to say that an event happened before or after another." http://www.newscientist.com/article/...spacetime.html NEW SCIENTIST: "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time. IT WAS a speech that changed the way we think of space and time. The year was 1908, and the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski had been trying to make sense of Albert Einstein's hot new idea - what we now know as special relativity - describing how things shrink as they move faster and time becomes distorted. "Henceforth space by itself and time by itself are doomed to fade into the mere shadows," Minkowski proclaimed, "and only a union of the two will preserve an independent reality." And so space-time - the malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter - was born. It is a concept that has served us well, but if physicist Petr Horava is right, it may be no more than a mirage. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser." http://www.newscientist.com/article/...erse-tick.html "It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter." http://www.homevalley.co.za/index.ph...s-are-changing "Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage. (...) What he and other pioneers on the spacetime frontiers have seen coming is an intellectual crisis. The approaches of the past seem insufficiently powerful to meet the challenges remaining from Einstein's century - such as finding a harmonious mathematical marriage for relativity with quantum mechanics the way Minkowski unified space and time. And more recently physicists have been forced to confront the embarrassment of not knowing what makes up the vast bulk of matter and energy in the universe. They remain in the dark about the nature of the dark energy that drives the universe to expand at an accelerating rate. Efforts to explain the dark energy's existence and intensity have been ambitious but fruitless. To Albrecht, the dark energy mystery suggests that it's time for physics to drop old prejudices about how nature's laws ought to be and search instead for how they really are. And that might mean razing Minkowski's arena and rebuilding it from a new design. It seems to me like it's a time in the development of physics, says Albrecht, where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very differently." http://www.newscientist.com/article/...al-denial.html New Scientist, 12 January 2011: "Scepticism towards Einstein's theory of relativity is not confined to irrational conservatives (13 November 2010, p 48). In his later years, the philosopher Karl Popper became increasingly troubled by relativity. I argue that, for Popper, inconsistencies in Einstein's presentation of his theory gave a rational explanation for persistent opposition to it (Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, vol 41, p 354). Popper himself ended up preferring Hendrik Lorentz's version of relativity, which retained absolute space and time." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY UNBEARABLE
On 23 Jan., 08:20, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einstein's relativity is getting unbearable, even inside Einsteiniana. The rallying cry seems to be: "Back to Newton through Lorentz!" http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim...-Contemporary-... Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy) "Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity, and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and physics. There is no other book like this available; hence philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its publication." "UNFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL." Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo- Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is uniquely decomposable into space and time." http://www.amazon.co.uk/Physical-Rel...structure-pers... "Harvey Brown thinks that most philsophers are confused about relativity. Most centrally, he thinks they're confused about the relativistic effects of length contraction and time dilation. (...) Physical Relativity explores the nature of the distinction at the heart of Einstein's 1905 formulation of his special theory of relativity: that between kinematics and dynamics. Einstein himself became increasingly uncomfortable with this distinction, and with the limitations of what he called the 'principle theory' approach inspired by the logic of thermodynamics. A handful of physicists and philosophers have over the last century likewise expressed doubts about Einstein's treatment of the relativistic behaviour of rigid bodies and clocks in motion in the kinematical part of his great paper, and suggested that THE DYNAMICAL UNDERSTANDING OF LENGTH CONTRACTION AND TIME DILATION INTIMATED BY THE IMMEDIATE PRECURSORS OF EINSTEIN IS MORE FUNDAMENTAL." http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory since its passage has not been captured within modern physical theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us. How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion, an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four- dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time." http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...me-an-illusion Craig Callender: "Einstein mounted the next assault by doing away with the idea of absolute simultaneity. According to his special theory of relativity, what events are happening at the same time depends on how fast you are going. The true arena of events is not time or space, but their union: spacetime. Two observers moving at different velocities disagree on when and where an event occurs, but they agree on its spacetime location. Space and time are secondary concepts that, as mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who had been one of Einstein's university professors, famously declared, "are doomed to fade away into mere shadows." And things only get worse in 1915 with Einstein's general theory of relativity, which extends special relativity to situations where the force of gravity operates. Gravity distorts time, so that a second's passage here may not mean the same thing as a second's passage there. Only in rare cases is it possible to synchronize clocks and have them stay synchronized, even in principle. You cannot generally think of the world as unfolding, tick by tick, according to a single time parameter. In extreme situations, the world might not be carvable into instants of time at all. It then becomes impossible to say that an event happened before or after another." http://www.newscientist.com/article/...inking-einstei... NEW SCIENTIST: "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time. IT WAS a speech that changed the way we think of space and time. The year was 1908, and the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski had been trying to make sense of Albert Einstein's hot new idea - what we now know as special relativity - describing how things shrink as they move faster and time becomes distorted. "Henceforth space by itself and time by itself are doomed to fade into the mere shadows," Minkowski proclaimed, "and only a union of the two will preserve an independent reality." And so space-time - the malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter - was born. It is a concept that has served us well, but if physicist Petr Horava is right, it may be no more than a mirage. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser." http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-makes-the-uni... "It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter." http://www.homevalley.co.za/index.ph...t&view=article... "Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage. (...) What he and other pioneers on the spacetime frontiers have seen coming is an intellectual crisis. The approaches of the past seem insufficiently powerful to meet the challenges remaining from Einstein's century - such as finding a harmonious mathematical marriage for relativity with quantum mechanics the way Minkowski unified space and time. And more recently physicists have been forced to confront the embarrassment of not knowing what makes up the vast bulk of matter and energy in the universe. They remain in the dark about the nature of the dark energy that drives the universe to expand at an accelerating rate. Efforts to explain the dark energy's existence and intensity have been ambitious but fruitless. To Albrecht, the dark energy mystery suggests that it's time for physics to drop old prejudices about how nature's laws ought to be and search instead for how they really are. And that might mean razing Minkowski's arena and rebuilding it from a new design. It seems to me like it's a time in the development of physics, says Albrecht, where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very differently." http://www.newscientist.com/article/...osophical-deni... New Scientist, 12 January 2011: "Scepticism towards Einstein's theory of relativity is not confined to irrational conservatives (13 November 2010, p 48). In his later years, the philosopher Karl Popper became increasingly troubled by relativity. I argue that, for Popper, inconsistencies in Einstein's presentation of his theory gave a rational explanation for persistent opposition to it (Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, vol 41, p 354). Popper himself ended up preferring Hendrik Lorentz's version of relativity, which retained absolute space and time." Pentcho Valev As a theory, Einsteins's SR is in principle falsifiable by a suitable experiment. Can you please describe an experiment where SR and your mentioend alternative theories make different predictions? If you can't, then you are not really objecting SR; and if you can, let's try it (in fact, I bet that it has been tried already). hagman |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY UNBEARABLE: the polysign fix...
On Jan 23, 8:10*am, hagman wrote:
On 23 Jan., 08:20, Pentcho Valev wrote: Einstein's relativity is getting unbearable, even inside Einsteiniana. The rallying cry seems to be: "Back to Newton through Lorentz!" snip Pentcho Valev As a theory, Einsteins's SR is in principle falsifiable by a suitable experiment. Can you please describe an experiment where SR and your mentioend alternative theories make different predictions? If you can't, then you are not really objecting SR; and if you can, let's try it (in fact, I bet that it has been tried already). hagman There are other grounds to challenge a theory by. Time is still under discussion to this day, and the actual treatment of it as a fourth dimension can be challenged. The means by which we discover that space is three dimensional does not extend onto time, where no such freedoms can be found. Couple this with time's unidirectional behavior and we see that the ability to incorporate time into the same tensor construction with space is dubious. We were free to rotate things about in the 3D form, thus bolstering the tensor interpretation of 3D space, but upon adding time as a fourth dimension the thing is off a bit, for we cannot rotate the length of a pencil into time can we? No, and now this metric which breaks the symmetry of the tensor, along with the isotropic assumption must be reexamined. I accept Einstein's brilliance; by reading a few paragraphs of his writing I can accept this. He was extremely thoughtful and was somehow able to squeeze into his master Minkowski's metric his theory. But the physical correspondence of the theory does fail in some very basic regards. How those qualities come to be swept under the rug in modernia does seem to be a fairly political puzzle. The politics of physics includes a belief in its own theories, which in order to be adopted must have been near enough to the mathematician's level of scrutiny, albeit in a physical guise, so as to be beyond deniability. In my own hindsight even the mathematician's level of scrutiny is dubious, and it is the physicist who tends to keep the more open mind. Still, somehow these subjects must meld and become one, preferably along with philosophy, to reach the level of credibility that modern physics presumes in its class rooms. We are free to construct and I do believe that there will be a replacement theory to relativity theory, and that the electromagnetic behaviors will be even more apparent than they are within relativity theory. That this new theory will actually derive spacetime, or supply its basis arithmetically is already exposed within polysign number theory, including unidirectional zero dimensional time. That isotropic space is a misnomer acceptable on the conglomerate scale, but with no support at the particle level is already partially exposed in the spin qualities of fundamental particles. That spacetime is structured is already signalled with the oddities that time poses, and then too the electromagnetic qualities, which are already regarded as spacetime behaved. We are so close, but now the level of unwinding has to come back at the mathematical level to get clean. When quantum physics admits its own unsensibility and divorces itself from philosophy to what degree is it then seeking a new philosophy? The perspective that I argue for does include spacetime unification, but it does not admit the tensor treatment. Instead it is a structured form that may as well take the form t x z where t represents time, x represents a 1D constituent, and z represents a 2D constituent (complex valued). This natural composition is more apparent within polysign as P1 P2 P3 and a behavioral breakpoint for P4+ exists within the polysign algebra, so that even if the structure goes on the support for spacetime remains. The nature of time is adjacent to the nature of the real value and the complex value; all are from the same ruleset. We have simply made a fundamental error by regarding the real value as fundamental, and attempted to construct these others from it. Polysign remedies this situation, and in doing so physical correspondence is resumed to the point of needing to challenge the 'real' number. At this juncture it will be easier to rename reality than it will be to rename the 'real' number. This work is not done, but a fundamental arithmetic is established. Please feel free to ponder http://bandtech.com/PolySigned/index.html - Tim |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY UNBEARABLE
"hagman" wrote in message ... | On 23 Jan., 08:20, Pentcho Valev wrote: | Einstein's relativity is getting unbearable, even inside Einsteiniana. | The rallying cry seems to be: | | "Back to Newton through Lorentz!" | | http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim...-Contemporary-... | Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in | Contemporary Philosophy) | "Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of | original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and | physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of | Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary | paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed | since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity, | and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys | relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and | physics. There is no other book like this available; hence | philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its | publication." | "UNFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS | EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE | QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL." | Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to | respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of | time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these | effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the | Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and | radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz | invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and | the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not | purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo- | Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime | include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant | structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian | spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this | picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is | uniquely decomposable into space and time." | | http://www.amazon.co.uk/Physical-Rel...structure-pers... | "Harvey Brown thinks that most philsophers are confused about | relativity. Most centrally, he thinks they're confused about the | relativistic effects of length contraction and time dilation. (...) | Physical Relativity explores the nature of the distinction at the | heart of Einstein's 1905 formulation of his special theory of | relativity: that between kinematics and dynamics. Einstein himself | became increasingly uncomfortable with this distinction, and with the | limitations of what he called the 'principle theory' approach inspired | by the logic of thermodynamics. A handful of physicists and | philosophers have over the last century likewise expressed doubts | about Einstein's treatment of the relativistic behaviour of rigid | bodies and clocks in motion in the kinematical part of his great | paper, and suggested that THE DYNAMICAL UNDERSTANDING OF LENGTH | CONTRACTION AND TIME DILATION INTIMATED BY THE IMMEDIATE PRECURSORS OF | EINSTEIN IS MORE FUNDAMENTAL." | | http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf | John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory | since its passage has not been captured within modern physical | theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact | that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that | the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a | real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us. | How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is | that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion, | an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the | world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a | lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of | Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully | powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most | perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four- | dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other | processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd | sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns | out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are | differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow | captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage | of time." | | http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...me-an-illusion | Craig Callender: "Einstein mounted the next assault by doing away with | the idea of absolute simultaneity. According to his special theory of | relativity, what events are happening at the same time depends on how | fast you are going. The true arena of events is not time or space, but | their union: spacetime. Two observers moving at different velocities | disagree on when and where an event occurs, but they agree on its | spacetime location. Space and time are secondary concepts that, as | mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who had been one of Einstein's | university professors, famously declared, "are doomed to fade away | into mere shadows." And things only get worse in 1915 with Einstein's | general theory of relativity, which extends special relativity to | situations where the force of gravity operates. Gravity distorts time, | so that a second's passage here may not mean the same thing as a | second's passage there. Only in rare cases is it possible to | synchronize clocks and have them stay synchronized, even in principle. | You cannot generally think of the world as unfolding, tick by tick, | according to a single time parameter. In extreme situations, the world | might not be carvable into instants of time at all. It then becomes | impossible to say that an event happened before or after another." | | http://www.newscientist.com/article/...inking-einstei... | NEW SCIENTIST: "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time. IT WAS a | speech that changed the way we think of space and time. The year was | 1908, and the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski had been trying | to make sense of Albert Einstein's hot new idea - what we now know as | special relativity - describing how things shrink as they move faster | and time becomes distorted. "Henceforth space by itself and time by | itself are doomed to fade into the mere shadows," Minkowski | proclaimed, "and only a union of the two will preserve an independent | reality." And so space-time - the malleable fabric whose geometry can | be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter - was born. It | is a concept that has served us well, but if physicist Petr Horava is | right, it may be no more than a mirage. (...) Something has to give in | this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the | smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser." | | http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-makes-the-uni... | "It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher | based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is | hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in | physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The | trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with | relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose | geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter." | | http://www.homevalley.co.za/index.ph...t&view=article... | "Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he | at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was | first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture | delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician | Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of | physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the | mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and | it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as | spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for | spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper | about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Physicists of the 21st | century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured | by the spacetime mirage. (...) What he and other pioneers on the | spacetime frontiers have seen coming is an intellectual crisis. The | approaches of the past seem insufficiently powerful to meet the | challenges remaining from Einstein's century - such as finding a | harmonious mathematical marriage for relativity with quantum mechanics | the way Minkowski unified space and time. And more recently physicists | have been forced to confront the embarrassment of not knowing what | makes up the vast bulk of matter and energy in the universe. They | remain in the dark about the nature of the dark energy that drives the | universe to expand at an accelerating rate. Efforts to explain the | dark energy's existence and intensity have been ambitious but | fruitless. To Albrecht, the dark energy mystery suggests that it's | time for physics to drop old prejudices about how nature's laws ought | to be and search instead for how they really are. And that might mean | razing Minkowski's arena and rebuilding it from a new design. It seems | to me like it's a time in the development of physics, says Albrecht, | where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very | differently." | | http://www.newscientist.com/article/...osophical-deni... | New Scientist, 12 January 2011: "Scepticism towards Einstein's theory | of relativity is not confined to irrational conservatives (13 November | 2010, p 48). In his later years, the philosopher Karl Popper became | increasingly troubled by relativity. I argue that, for Popper, | inconsistencies in Einstein's presentation of his theory gave a | rational explanation for persistent opposition to it (Studies in | History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, vol 41, p 354). Popper | himself ended up preferring Hendrik Lorentz's version of relativity, | which retained absolute space and time." | | Pentcho Valev | | | As a theory, Einsteins's SR is in principle falsifiable by a suitable | experiment. | Can you please describe an experiment where SR and your mentioend | alternative theories make different predictions? Sure. -- r_AB/(c+v) = r_AB/(c-v). References given: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif Let r_AB = 480 million metres, let c = 300 million metres/sec, let v = 180 million metres/sec. 480/(300-180) = 480/(300 +180) 480/(120) = 480/(480) 4 = 1 "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant, the velocity of light in empty space." --§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity -- ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein "the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity"--§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks --ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. Einstein In agreement with experience we further assume four seconds plays the part, physically, of one second, the idiocy of raving lunatics in Relativityland. | If you can't, then you are not really objecting SR; | and if you can, let's try it (in fact, I bet that it has been tried | already). Of course it has. Nobody can make 4 = 1. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY UNBEARABLE: the polysign fix...
Now that even Einsteinians as faithful as John Norton and Craig
Callender protest against Divine Albert's Divine Theory heresy does not look very dangerous. Yet that was not the case some time ago so let us remember the martyrs: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...1831761a0.html Nature 183, 1761 (20 June 1959) Herbert Dingle: "AS is well known, Einstein's special theory of relativity rests on two postulates: (1) the postulate of relativity; (2) the postulate of constant light velocity, which says "that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body". For the first postulate there is much experimental support; for the second, none." http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_S...Crossroads.pdf Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of accleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/c...&filetype=.pdf Herbert Dingle: "...the internal consistency of the restricted relativity theory seems questionable if the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light is given its usual interpretation... (...) These difficulties are removed if the postulate be interpreted MERELY as requiring that the velocity of light relative to its actual material source shall always be c..." http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm The farce of physics Bryan Wallace "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v. (...) I expect that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it." [Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the text] Pentcho Valev |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY UNBEARABLE
hate scrolling that ****, dood, as much
as scrolling PV's bot's palimpsest. it's just a phase-space, and this should have been recognized a long time ago, since it is not the first use of phase-spaces. read more » |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY UNBEARABLE: the polysign fix...
For Einsteiniana's profiteers Divine Albert's Divine Theory is now
unbearable because it can no longer be a money-spinner (everybody knows Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is false; nobody takes length contraction and time dilation miracles seriously anymore). So they are desperately looking for a new money-spinner: http://www.scientificamerican.com/bl...-im-2011-01-28 John Horgan: "In his new book Greene takes us even further away from reality, asking us to consider not just hypothetical particles but entire universes that lie beyond the reach of our instruments. Multiverses are old hat, of course. In a 1990 article for Scientific American on cosmology I included a sidebar, "Here a universe, there a universe…," about speculation that our universe "is only one in an infinitude of cosmos." My tone was lightly mocking, because cosmologists themselves seemed to be kidding - even embarrassed - when they talked about all these alternate universes. But now Greene - as well as Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Sean M. Carroll and other prominent physicist/popularizers - want us to take multiverses seriously." Pentcho Valev |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY UNBEARABLE
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...11/bosmo10.xml
"Smolin admits that "we have made no real headway". "We have failed," he says. "It has produced a crisis in physics." (...) EINSTEIN MAY HAVE STARTED THE ROT." When did Einstein start the rot? http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field." That is, photons accelerate as they move towards an observer in the presence of a gravitational field - this observer will measure the speed of light to be higher or lower than c (more precisely, he will measure the frequency to be higher or lower than the original frequency). But if a static observer in a gravitational field measures the speed of light to be variable, so does an accelerating observer in the absence of a gravitational field. That is, in 1907 Einstein realized that his 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate was false: http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it." Special relativity "was wrong" but Einstein did not want to abandon the length contraction and time dilation miracles - they were going to convert him into Divine Albert. So 1907 was the year when Einstein "STARTED THE ROT". Pentcho Valev |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY UNBEARABLE
In 1952 Einstein was still defending his 1905 false constant-speed-of-
light postulate by suggesting that the continuous-field model of light should be prefered over the discontinuous-particle model: http://www.relativitybook.com/resour...ein_space.html "Relativity and the Problem of Space" Albert Einstein (1952): "During the second half of the nineteenth century, in connection with the researches of Faraday and Maxwell it became more and more clear that the description of electromagnetic processes in terms of field was vastly superior to a treatment on the basis of the mechanical concepts of material points. By the introduction of the field concept in electrodynamics, Maxwell succeeded in predicting the existence of electromagnetic waves, the essential identity of which with light waves could not be doubted because of the equality of their velocity of propagation. As a result of this, optics was, in principle, absorbed by electrodynamics. One psychological effect of this immense success was that the field concept, as opposed to the mechanistic framework of classical physics, gradually won greater independence. (...) Since the special theory of relativity revealed the physical equivalence of all inertial systems, it proved the untenability of the hypothesis of an aether at rest. It was therefore necessary to renounce the idea that the electromagnetic field is to be regarded as a state of a material carrier. The field thus becomes an irreducible element of physical description..." Then in 1954 Einstein suddenly became honest (people do get honest at the end of their lives) and his 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, closely related to the continuous-field model of light, became unbearable to him: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." Curiously, Einstein had a temporary burst of honesty in 1909 when the gravitational-time-dilation camouflage was not devised yet and everything spoke in favour of Newton's emission theory of light (giving the true antithesis of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of- light postulate): http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_De...e_of_Radiation "The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of Radiation", Albert Einstein, 1909 "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from the emitting to the absorbing object." Pentcho Valev |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY UNBEARABLE
Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate unbearable:
http://www.crc-resurrection.org/Rena...e_Einstein.php "Écoutons Lévy-Leblond : « Le génie d'Einstein fut de mettre en cause les notions de base d'espace et de temps elles-mêmes (bigre !). Il inversa la démarche : au lieu d'expliquer la constance apparente de la vitesse de la lumière (par quelque cause physique particulière), il la prit comme point de départ et bâtit sur cette hypothèse une nouvelle théorie de l'espace et du temps. » (Lévy-Leblond, p. 419) Mais c'est absurde ! « Qu'on le tourne et retourne comme on voudra, il faut avouer que c'est là un pur non-sens. » (Maritain, Réflexions sur l'intelligence, p. 215) Ce n'est plus la vitesse du mobile qui résulte de l'espace et du temps, ce sont l'espace et le temps qui se contractent ou se dilatent, pour laisser à l'objet sa vitesse constante, invariable, insurpassable, absolue !" http://www.oocities.com/rainforest/6039/jd9.html "An open letter to Professor Stephen Hawking by John Doan, Melbourne, 29 August 97....There's only one thing that I want to raise with you in this letter, and it's Einstein's second postulate. Why can't you step out from Einstein's shadow and change relativity, Professor Hawking? Why should you accept Einstein's second postulate that the speed of light is absolute, resulting all paradoxes about time dilation? Why should you accept that c + v = c, in the sense that a light spent from Earth to a spaceship has to be measured as c regardless how fast the spaceship is travelling relative to Earth? How much evidence have you truly seen?....Your students would still keep asking the same questions your teachers have asked before. Many people are still confused. Some understand but cannot explain to idiots. Some don't understand but have stopped asking to stop being called idiots, too. And why should we deserve this? Why should we waste time imagining what our world would be like since Einstein said light is absolute? Why don't we go back and ask what if Einstein is wrong, that light is not absolute, that in fact c + c = 2c?....I have a dream, that one day Professor Hawking would write the first non-Einstein relativity book with an opposite second postulate, and I would be one of first readers congratulating you for helping me understand it.....If you say c + c = 2c, you certainly could make more sense than Einstein's postulate saying c + c = c. Yet where is non-Einstein relativity? Why can't you invent it, Professor Hawking? What has stopped you?" The unbearably absurd consequences of Einstein's 1905 false constant- speed-of-light postulate (an arbitrarily long object can be trapped inside an arbitrarily short container and a bug can be both dead and alive): http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn." http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions "Cependant, si une fusée de 100 m passait devant nous à une vitesse proche de celle de la lumière, elle pourrait sembler ne mesurer que 50 m, ou même moins. Bien sûr, la question qui vient tout de suite à l'esprit est: «Cette contraction n'est-elle qu'une illusion?» Il semble tout à fait incroyable que le simple mouvement puisse comprimer un objet aussi rigide qu'une fusée. Et pourtant, la contraction est réelle... mais SANS COMPRESSION physique de l'objet! Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin. Comment est-ce possible?" http://alcor.concordia.ca/~scol/semi...ts/Durand.html "La contraction une longueur est un phénomène à la fois réel mais sans déformation structurelle. C'est un phénomène réel (et non pas une illusion) car, par exemple, une perche dont la longueur au repos est plus grande que la longueur au repos d'une grange peut réellement être contenue dans cette dernière si elle se déplace assez rapidement. Par contre, il ne peut y avoir de contraction structurelle de la perche, i.e de déformation matérielle de l'objet, car la contraction de sa longueur aurait aussi lieu si c'était plutôt l'observateur qui se mettait en mouvement sans changer l'état de mouvement de la perche. Autrement dit, sans changer l'état de la perche, en se mettant soi- même en mouvement, on change sa longueur: ce n'est donc clairement pas une contraction matérielle (l'état de la perche est le même dans les deux cas)." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html "The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved." Pentcho Valev |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 31 | September 30th 10 08:21 AM |
THE SILENT END OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 18 | September 7th 10 06:08 AM |
Is Einstein's Relativity Inexact? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | January 8th 09 12:24 PM |
Disproving Einstein's General Relativity (GR) | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | September 2nd 07 12:37 PM |
how technical is Einstein's book on relativity? | Alan Dillard | CCD Imaging | 2 | December 9th 06 03:15 PM |