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

WHY EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY IS INCONSISTENT



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 7th 14, 10:34 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default WHY EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY IS INCONSISTENT

The top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c and wavelength L (as measured by the emitter):

f = c/L

An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be f', the speed of light to be c' and the wavelength to be L':

f' = c'/L'

Let us assume for a moment that gravitational time dilation as defined in general relativity (clocks on the ground tick slower than clocks at the top of the tower) is the only factor changing the measured quantities (the gravitational field does not affect the light as it travels between the top of the tower and the ground). Then we would have:

f' = f(1+gh/c^2)

c' = c(1+gh/c^2)

L' = L

Numerically, this coincides with the prediction of Newton's emission theory of light where there is no gravitational time dilation but instead the light accelerates as it falls.

Now we can add effects the gravitational field may have on the travelling light. What effects does Einstein's relativity predict? f' cannot be changed further - this is the result confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment. Therefore, from a formal point of view, any prediction should be limited to c' and L' increasing or decreasing proportionally. "Decreasing" is not physically plausible - it implies deceleration of the light as it falls. "Increasing" is implausible as well - there is no reason why the wavelength should increase as the light falls.

Clearly there are two interpretations giving the correct results:

1. Gravitational time dilation does exist. The gravitational field does not affect the travelling light.

2. There is no gravitational time dilation. In a gravitational field, light accelerates as ordinary falling objects do.

Einstein's general relativity, if it predicts results different from c'=c(1+gh/c^2) and L'=L, is inconsistent.

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old June 7th 14, 11:50 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default WHY EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY IS INCONSISTENT

Einstein's special relativity was deduced from the false assumption (borrowed from the ether theory where light is a continuous field) that the speed of light is constant (independent of the speed of the emitter). Then in his general relativity Einstein made the speed of light variable again, without abandoning the constant-speed-of-light miracles deduced in special relativity. So Einstein's theory of relativity became an INCONSISTENCY - a malignant neoplasm spreading everywhere, explaining and predicting everything and killing the whole scientific organism in the end:

http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/tho...%20science.pdf
W.H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, 1981, p. 229: "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple argument shows. Let 'q' be an arbitrary sentence of the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent.. This means that we can derive the sentence 'p and not-p'. From this 'p' follows. And from 'p' it follows that 'p or q' (if 'p' is true then 'p or q' will be true no matter whether 'q' is true or not). Equally, it follows from 'p and not-p' that 'not-p'. But 'not-p' together with 'p or q' entails 'q'. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which contained each sentence of the theory's language and its negation."

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "Precisely because Einstein's theory is inconsistent, its exponents can draw on contradictory principles in a way that greatly extends the apparent explanatory scope of the theory. Inconsistency may be a disadvantage in a scientific theory but it can be a decisive advantage in an ideology. The inconsistency of relativity theory - to borrow the language of the early Marx - gives relativity its apparent universal content. This seeming power of explanation functions to enhance the status of the group, giving them power over others through the enhanced control over resources, and a greater power to direct research and to exclude and marginalise dissent."

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."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old June 8th 14, 09:59 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default WHY EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY IS INCONSISTENT

http://plus.maths.org/issue37/featur...ein/index.html
John Barrow FRS, professor of mathematical sciences at the University of Cambridge: "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."

Einstein's inconsistency did turn the world inside out. The aftermaths:

http://www.worddocx.com/Apparel/1231/8955.html
Mike Alder: "This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not."

http://www.edge.org/response-detail/23857
Steve Giddings, theoretical physicist; Professor, Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara: "What really keeps me awake at night (...) is that we face a crisis within the deepest foundations of physics. The only way out seems to involve profound revision of fundamental physical principles."

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/05/p...odern-physics/
Neil Turok: "It's the ultimate catastrophe: that theoretical physics has led to this crazy situation where the physicists are utterly confused and seem not to have any predictions at all."

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/ar...NEWS/309309981
Hilton Ratcliffe: "Physics is dying, being suffocated by meta-mathematics, and physics departments at major universities with grand histories in physical science are closing down for lack of interest. It is a crisis in my view. (...) If, as in the case of GTR and later with Big Bang Theory and Black Hole theory, the protagonists have seductive charisma (which Einstein, Gamow, and Hawking, respectively, had in abundance) then the theory, though not the least bit understood, becomes the darling of the media. GTR and Big Bang Theory are sacrosanct, and it's most certainly not because they make any sense. In fact, they have become the measure by which we sanctify nonsense."

http://archipope.over-blog.com/article-12278372.html
"Nous nous trouvons dans une période de mutation extrêmement profonde. Nous sommes en effet à la fin de la science telle que l'Occident l'a connue », tel est constat actuel que dresse Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, physicien théoricien, épistémologue et directeur des collections scientifiques des Editions du Seuil."

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old June 8th 14, 10:20 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default WHY EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY IS INCONSISTENT

Inconsistency in Big Brother's world:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter1.7.html
"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Oceania's scientists advanced the fundamental postulate 2+2=5 and immediately bumped into a "paradox":

3(2 + 2) = 3x5 = 15

3(2 + 2) = 3x2 + 3x2 = 6 + 6 = 12

Can the "paradox" be resolved? Oceania's scientists can only get rid of the false postulate 2+2=5. Analogously, scientists who do not want to live amidst the idiotic "paradoxes" of relativity will have to get rid of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate.

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
TWO LIES BEHIND EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 February 17th 14 05:26 PM
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY UNBEARABLE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 13 February 12th 11 04:55 PM
THE SILENT END OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 18 September 7th 10 06:08 AM
THE OFFICIAL END OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 16 June 6th 08 04:34 PM
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 962 December 17th 07 01:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 PM.


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.