Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by Chan Rasjid » Thu Jul 23, 2015 8:50 am

Hello Neil,

Thanks for the link to your home page - exactly what I look for.
http://worlds-within-worlds.org/publica ... search.php and here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Empiri ... eality.pdf

I have always been on the look-out for alternative physics as I intuitively distrust many of the fantasy physics that mainstream insists to be the only good physics. Somehow, most of the interesting alternative authors that I find come from this thunderbolt forum.

I only know some rudiments of physics, but I do have some laughs reading your "Empirical Science: Back to Reality!".

"As to the 2 nd part of the 1 st Criteria, never before in all of history has any human being ever directly observed any “curved space”, nor any “curved time”, nor any of the even more ludicrous “curved space-time”. So, this version of relativity is directly contradicted by thousands of years of empirical human experiences."

It reminds me of the ancient Chinese Yin Yang principle - the curved exists only through the straight and the straight exists only through the curved. So "curved spacetime" can only be founded on "straight spacetime". Which is the more fundamental?

Everything I wanted to say is also this:
"Einstein's version of relativity theory has produced no physically verifiable unambiguous predictions, about anything! In addition, 100 years of this version of relativity have resulted in zero innovations and zero new conveniences. (So what good is it?)"
So not having special relativity as physics has zero impact to applied physics and engineering.

"In summation, there is absolutely nothing right about Einstein's version of relativity. Whether we are considering GR, or SR, every supposition that is supposed to be deriving from any completely flawed scientific expression, is equally flawed, and is more likely to be an even worse flaw, which is stacked up on top of all the previous flaws. What we're left with is a completely useless stack of garbage."

Computer science never lie - garbage in, garbage out!

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid

saul
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by saul » Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:53 am

Chan Rasjid wrote:Hello Neil,

Thanks for the link to your home page - exactly what I look for.
http://worlds-within-worlds.org/publica ... search.php and here: http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Empiri ... eality.pdf

I have always been on the look-out for alternative physics as I intuitively distrust many of the fantasy physics that mainstream insists to be the only good physics. Somehow, most of the interesting alternative authors that I find come from this thunderbolt forum.

I only know some rudiments of physics, but I do have some laughs reading your "Empirical Science: Back to Reality!".

"As to the 2 nd part of the 1 st Criteria, never before in all of history has any human being ever directly observed any “curved space”, nor any “curved time”, nor any of the even more ludicrous “curved space-time”. So, this version of relativity is directly contradicted by thousands of years of empirical human experiences."

It reminds me of the ancient Chinese Yin Yang principle - the curved exists only through the straight and the straight exists only through the curved. So "curved spacetime" can only be founded on "straight spacetime". Which is the more fundamental?

Everything I wanted to say is also this:
"Einstein's version of relativity theory has produced no physically verifiable unambiguous predictions, about anything! In addition, 100 years of this version of relativity have resulted in zero innovations and zero new conveniences. (So what good is it?)"
So not having special relativity as physics has zero impact to applied physics and engineering.

"In summation, there is absolutely nothing right about Einstein's version of relativity. Whether we are considering GR, or SR, every supposition that is supposed to be deriving from any completely flawed scientific expression, is equally flawed, and is more likely to be an even worse flaw, which is stacked up on top of all the previous flaws. What we're left with is a completely useless stack of garbage."

Computer science never lie - garbage in, garbage out!

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid
Greetings Chan -

Because you mention computer science, I will compare this kind of criticism of relativity to a criticism of JSON, or maybe IPv4. They are protocols, they specify how we should form packets and other communications. Special Relativity is also a protocol, which we use every time we say "1 meter" or "1 second". Relativity defines for us what those terms mean (they are defined electromagnetically) and how to use them. You are indeed welcome to criticize this protocol, or even design your own to improve upon it. However, it seems to me we should not say that "IPv4 is wrong". Instead we could say something like "IPv4 is not very useful for certain types of communication such as ...".

Cheers -- saul

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by Chan Rasjid » Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:59 pm

Hello scowie,
I guess eliminating both postulates of special relativity has no impact on physics at all.

1) "constancy of the speed of light" -
I think many dissidents have expressed the view that there is the ether and the speed of light is a constant c = 1/√(μ₀ ε₀) only in the ether frame in free space. The speed of light is source independent, but observer dependent with v = c ± w. The μ₀, ε₀ should be the properties of the ether in space empty of everything else (It is not the property of empty space)

(I added this as I just notice Saul just made a new post in this thread: I will add that if we can measure the one way light speed of a light source fixed to the ground and my speed is 1/2 c towards the source, the measured speed will be (only my guess) 1.5 c. This would refute special relativity. But I would not want a debate on what "the experiments say" as both camps have their views and debates cannot settle anything).

So the SI definition of the meter is not proper. But it may be good enough for the present as long as the physicist is aware of its flaw.

2) "The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames" -
I think this postulate has not much of a use in real physics. Why the inertial frame is single out? What was intended probably was "The laws of physics have the same mathematical form in all inertial frames". So Maxwell's equations is Lorentz invariant, but not Galilean invariant.

We have a reason why the inertial frame has a special place in physics. It is due to the observation of Galileo about relativity - that rest and uniform linear motion cannot be distinguished. So rest frames as well as frames with relative uniform linear motion (not other types of motion) are the class of equivalent inertial frames. So when Newton formulated his laws of motions, he built upon the work of Galileo. His three laws are only valid for inertial frames of reference. If we happen to be in a lab aboard a UFO that can move about in strange manner, it would be difficult to apply Newtons Laws of Motion - there is only lawlessness within such a lab! So it may be necessary to specify certain reference frames when stating a law of physics.

We usually consider some rules to be a law only if it is unchanging and universal. So it should be just "the laws of electromagnetism" or "Newton's law of gravitation". I think it is preposterous to assume man can know all and everything about the laws of physics - if it is the same here as it is at the edge of the universe. If Coulombs law and the Biot Savart law changes throughout the universe, then the speed of light of 1/√(μ₀ ε₀) would change. But then, practically we are trapped only here on earth and how the laws may change faraway may be just a guess and not easily verifiable - what cannot be verified may as well be non-existent.

So what may be important is what the experiments say when done usually here on earth. So all the laws of physics are generally valid for earthlings and in his environment - they are just "laws of physics".

Hello Saul,
Saul : "Because you mention computer science, I will compare this kind of criticism of relativity to a criticism of JSON, or maybe IPv4. They are protocols, they specify how we should form packets and other communications. Special Relativity is also a protocol, which we use every time we say "1 meter" or "1 second". Relativity defines for us what those terms mean (they are defined electromagnetically) and how to use them. You are indeed welcome to criticize this protocol, or even design your own to improve upon it. However, it seems to me we should not say that "IPv4 is wrong". Instead we could say something like "IPv4 is not very useful for certain types of communication such as ..."

I really don't understand what you mean by "Special Relativity is also a protocol" or about how the meter, second are "defined electromagnetically". What am I to do concerning what you have just said? How am I to bring your understanding of special relativity into my understanding of special relativity? I am not aware of any way of easy "transplant" of understanding from human to human (then, human life would be much much less controversial). I can only expound on what I understand. It is all put into a 4 page article:
The Lorentz Transformation Cannot be Physical
http://vixra.org/abs/1501.0156

The conclusion in the article reads:
"In view of the fact that real physical positions and time would never be transformed into real physical values, any theory of physics that invokes the Lorentz transformation would be found to be invalid. This includes Einstein’s special and general theory of relativity."

The conclusion is still the only way I could conclude from what I understand of Einstein's relativity.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid

kevin
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by kevin » Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:39 pm

Chan,
Hello.
The straight and curved are symbiotic.
I am a dowser that detects straight lines, they are to be found in NINES, three sets of three...3,6,9.
Those lines reveal a lattice structure that consciousness then flows along.
The nine lines are in all directions, thus consciousness follows whatever is the pathway of least resistance.
Your heart is the that centre of You.
The consequences are geometric spheroids We call planets and stars etc.
They are compressions of consciousness ( aether)
YOU are self similer.
Fibonacci is king ( He found it in the vedic scriptures actually)
Kevin

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by Chan Rasjid » Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:27 am

saul wrote: Greetings Chan -

Because you mention computer science, I will compare this kind of criticism of relativity to a criticism of JSON, or maybe IPv4. They are protocols, they specify how we should form packets and other communications. Special Relativity is also a protocol, which we use every time we say "1 meter" or "1 second". Relativity defines for us what those terms mean (they are defined electromagnetically) and how to use them. You are indeed welcome to criticize this protocol, or even design your own to improve upon it. However, it seems to me we should not say that "IPv4 is wrong". Instead we could say something like "IPv4 is not very useful for certain types of communication such as ...".

Cheers -- saul
Consider the drawing of straight lines. A straight line AB is drawn. A person has an application that draws straight lines. He draws straight lines BC, BD, BE. He insists the paths ABC, ABD, ABE are also straight lines through some "protocols" of the user's manual.

The use of the Lorentz transformation in special relativity is analogous to the above example - an almost a perfect illustration of what special relativity does. A spacetime event E(x,y,z,t) on the ground is E'(x',y',z',t') aboard an airplane given by:
LT : E(x,y,z,t) -> E'(x',y',z',t');

x,y,z are real physical units of distance in meter and time t in seconds through the usual physical methods of measurement - an explicit association of physical units to the pure scalars of mathematics. The relativists assume the x',y',z' and t' are also real - in meters and seconds; but an assumption doesn't just make things happen! Special relativity has not given the rule on how spacetime in the moving frame may be associated with real physical units.

There is a covenant that determines what constitutes reality in science. Reality must be directly verifiable or that it may be conceived to be directly verifiable under some suitable circumstances. A distance is real only if it may be verified directly through a physical measurement - as comparing with a standard rod. Time is real only if it may be verified directly with a physical clock. So distances and time on the ground could be verified easily by someone on the ground. But a person aboard an airplane may only measure the lengths of objects inside the plane and to read real clocks aboard the airplane - he cannot directly verify distances and time on the ground! Distances and time are real only for its own reference frame where an experimenter "may walk and stop" about the frame to make measurements - it's crude; but it's a covenant!

The issue of physical reality does not exist in Galilean relativity. The metric of distance remains the same for all inertial frames. There is only one universal time.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by Chan Rasjid » Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:30 am

Chan Rasjid wrote:The Lorentz transformation cannot be physical. What it means is that nature cannot be Lorentz invariant; nature can only be Galilean invariant.

Any theory that is Lorentz invariant would be invalid - this would not only be Einstein's special and general relativity theories, but also the very foundation of electromagnetism - the Maxwell's equations.

It seems electromagnetism needs a fundamental rewrite so that it is Galilean invariant.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid.
Faraday's law is false:
http://www.thescienceforum.com/pseudosc ... false.html

I have just found a forum debate dated 2009 where one of the poster clearly stated that the foundation of electromagnetism is wrong and need to be replaced.

poster Omnibus:
"...Mentioning Jackson won't help either. You are stuck with the dB/dt = 0 in Maxwell's equations which defies emf where there is such (in homopolar generators) and your only recourse is the ad hominem "sonny". Get used to the fact that Maxwell's equations are an inadequate mathematical description of the physical reality concerning electromagnetic phenomena and move on. Otherwise you're actually the one wasting our time. "

"Pseudoscience is to talk about Lorentz force when Maxwell's equations are at stake. As I said, if Maxwell's equations provided correct description of the electromagnetic phenomena then they should yield emf also in the case of a unipolar generator where experiment demonstrates such. They don't, however, because dB/dt = 0 in an unipolar generator.

Scientific method requires that a theory such as Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism be in harmony with the results from any experiment pertaining to electromagnetism. Even one exception, finding even one example of an experiment at odds with the theory renders that theory invalid. As seen, experimental measurement of emf in an unipolar generator goes contrary to the conclusion from Maxwell's equations for no emf in such generator. That invalidates said theory."

There was vehement attempts to defend Maxwell's theory. I think they are indirectly trying to defend special relativity as any suggestion of replacing Maxwell's theory would imply the end of special relativity. No one is going to do that.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid

User avatar
rnboyd
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:57 am
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by rnboyd » Thu Jul 30, 2015 1:20 pm

Dear Chan :)

I'm glad you were amused by my "Empirical Science" article :)

Regarding "Saul", by expressing relativity as a "protocol", he is comparing a bar of metal, to the rules of football. They have nothing to do with one another. I think he wants to view Einstein's relativity as a "standard" or a "protocol". Einstein's version of relativity is NOT a "protocol", in any regard. It has nothing to do with anything physical. If everyone agreed that the sky was always green, as a "protocol", that agreement would not act to turn the sky green.

"Saul" either intends to create confusion, or is himself vastly confused, and has no business talking physics at this time, until he deeply educates himself in the physics. Computer science (binary coding) is not physics. The mathematical rules of binary logic are non-physical, a mental abstraction originating from the mind of man, not from Nature (which IS physical).

If Einstein's version of relativity is viewed in terms of a communications protocol, of course it must be able to communicate with other devices, other portions of reality. But it does not communicate with any even small fragment of Actual Factual Reality.

For example, using IPv4 to try to talk to your physical person without the benefit of a protocol convertor to translate the IPv4 into human speech, in your particular personal verbal language, is useless and pointless. (By the way, I was twice offered positions on on the TCP/IP Standards Committee, which I turned down, both times. They don't pay anything.)

Regarding Maxwell and electromagnetism, I suggest learning exterior forms and the physical derivation of the Pfaff dimensions from the Grassman algebra. See: http://www.terathon.com/gdc12_lengyel.pdf

The Grassman algebra has nothing to do with any "metric". (A "metric" is an abstract artifice in the first place, originating from the human intellect. There is no "metric" in Real Reality.) The Grassman algebra is also a projective algebra, and is the origination of wedge products (exterior products). Importantly, in Grassman algebra, vectors are not required to be orthogonal to one another. Any interaction angle is allowed, even fractions of acute angles. Nor does the Grassman algebra need to know which way is "up", as opposed to the Caley algebra, the quaternions and the various other Clifford algebras. Incidentally, the Grassman algebra is perfect for modeling superluminal physical behaviors. (I'm sure Einstein avoided it like the plague.)

Have a look at the seminal works by Prof Kiehn, such as: http://www.k1man.com/Kiehn120926B.pdf

I appreciate you :)

Neil
The subquantum unfies all the sciences.

User avatar
rnboyd
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:57 am
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by rnboyd » Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:40 pm

Hi Chan :)

I am fond of the concept of Galilean invariance. Is there a corresponding Galilean transformation, perhaps?

I think the Lorentz transform applies to normal light, but not to anything else, as far as I can tell. Regarding Maxwell, have you seen his original publications, written in the quaternionic form before Heaviside got hold of them and screwed them all up and turned them into simplified vector notation?

Maxwell actually produced equations in 6 Euclidean dimensions, but this is obscure to most people. I suggest having a look at Tony Smith's website in these regards. See for example:
http://www.valdostamuseum.com/hamsmith/ ... ml#TorPhys

All the Best

Neil
The subquantum unfies all the sciences.

saul
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by saul » Fri Aug 07, 2015 5:08 am

rnboyd wrote:
Regarding "Saul", by expressing relativity as a "protocol", he is comparing a bar of metal, to the rules of football. They have nothing to do with one another. I think he wants to view Einstein's relativity as a "standard" or a "protocol". Einstein's version of relativity is NOT a "protocol", in any regard. It has nothing to do with anything physical. If everyone agreed that the sky was always green, as a "protocol", that agreement would not act to turn the sky green.
Hi Neil, thanks for your response.

Rather, your example would define the sequence of characters "g-r-e-e-n" to indicate the color of the sky, which we know today as "b-l-u-e". If you don't like the term protocol, how would you describe it? Look up "meter" in the dictionary, and you will find explicitly the axiom from which the rest of special relativity is derived. This axiom is not proven theoretically or experimentally, it is simply suggested as a good way to define distance, and it stands thusly.


"Saul" either intends to create confusion, or is himself vastly confused, and has no business talking physics at this time, until he deeply educates himself in the physics. Computer science (binary coding) is not physics. The mathematical rules of binary logic are non-physical, a mental abstraction originating from the mind of man, not from Nature (which IS physical).

If Einstein's version of relativity is viewed in terms of a communications protocol, of course it must be able to communicate with other devices, other portions of reality. But it does not communicate with any even small fragment of Actual Factual Reality.
Well now we go a bit afield but hey, what are internet forums for? :) As physicists we concern ourselves with building and using communicable models of Actual Factual Reality. These models always have domains of applicability, and when we go outside these domains our theories run into problems, that is, they fail. One of the most basic model requirements is for us to label objects, and then to describe the amount of distance between them. The travel time of light turns out to be a really good way to model this distance. It is in fact the definition in the minds of most physicists today. It is exactly equivalent to distance defined with an electromagnetically bound metal Napoleonic bar for example. A bar that one might use to lay out a football field according to FIFA protocol.

For example, using IPv4 to try to talk to your physical person without the benefit of a protocol convertor to translate the IPv4 into human speech, in your particular personal verbal language, is useless and pointless. (By the way, I was twice offered positions on on the TCP/IP Standards Committee, which I turned down, both times. They don't pay anything.)

Regarding Maxwell and electromagnetism, I suggest learning exterior forms and the physical derivation of the Pfaff dimensions from the Grassman algebra. See: http://www.terathon.com/gdc12_lengyel.pdf

The Grassman algebra has nothing to do with any "metric". (A "metric" is an abstract artifice in the first place, originating from the human intellect. There is no "metric" in Real Reality.) The Grassman algebra is also a projective algebra, and is the origination of wedge products (exterior products). Importantly, in Grassman algebra, vectors are not required to be orthogonal to one another. Any interaction angle is allowed, even fractions of acute angles. Nor does the Grassman algebra need to know which way is "up", as opposed to the Caley algebra, the quaternions and the various other Clifford algebras. Incidentally, the Grassman algebra is perfect for modeling superluminal physical behaviors. (I'm sure Einstein avoided it like the plague.)
I will look in more detail into Grassman algebras. I have some experience with the mathematical objects you discuss in other contexts, but often I have been under the impression that their adoption by physicists has been more due to aesthetic concerns than practical ones. I believe you are correct about "metric" being a construct, but that is not exactly helpful because any sequence of letters we might correspond here with will also be constructs.. the map and not the territory.

My full name is Lukas A. Saul if you would like to look up my other writings on the topic.

Best of luck --

Saul

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by Chan Rasjid » Fri Aug 07, 2015 8:58 am

Hello Saul,

I know that generally it is a waste of time to engage in debates. There is a Stephen J. Crothers who shows general relativity to be incorrect with full mathematics. Whether debates are engaged with or without very difficult mathematics solves nothing. I could just say "Saul, you don't know physics..." and you''ll continue with your protocol argument. What can I do? Say I am wrong and I repent for my foolishness! I started this thread with the arguments that Einstein's relativity is trivially invalid. It is for others to read and decide if my arguments are of value, especially for those who may want to see if there are people out there who don't accept the mainstream's total acceptance of relativity.
saul wrote: ...If you don't like the term protocol, how would you describe it? Look up "meter" in the dictionary, and you will find explicitly the axiom from which the rest of special relativity is derived. This axiom is not proven theoretically or experimentally, it is simply suggested as a good way to define distance, and it stands thusly.
Just assume protocol to be a standard of communication - eg. you and I are now debating using the "English protocol" - in this case about the meanings of words. OK, the SI system of units is a protocol including the definition of the meter.

Your use of "from which the rest of special relativity is derived" is showing your disingenuity. Special relativity is not == "The speed of light is 299792458 m/s PERIOD". If this is Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, no one would care; but for your insistence: ... special relativity is only a protocol... saying it is wrong is like saying the IPv4 or the English protocol is wrong.... If Saul just start with the protocol (without further postulates) "The speed of light is 299792458 m/s PERIOD" and finds that length contracts and time dilates, then I may ...
saul wrote: Well now we go a bit afield but hey, what are internet forums for? :) As physicists we concern ourselves with building and using communicable models of Actual Factual Reality. These models always have domains of applicability, and when we go outside these domains our theories run into problems, that is, they fail. One of the most basic model requirements is for us to label objects, and then to describe the amount of distance between them. The travel time of light turns out to be a really good way to model this distance. It is in fact the definition in the minds of most physicists today. It is exactly equivalent to distance defined with an electromagnetically bound metal Napoleonic bar for example. A bar that one might use to lay out a football field according to FIFA protocol.
Who is so dumb to dispute: "The travel time of light turns out to be a really good way to model this distance.".

What does this mean? :
It is exactly equivalent to distance defined with an electromagnetically bound metal Napoleonic bar for example.

I am a Muslim with insider information of the seventh order. I have a theory that metal bars are not "electromagnetically bound" but "jinnetically bound". A halal bar is needed for the FIFA protocol, a French one is not ritually pure.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid

saul
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by saul » Sat Aug 08, 2015 4:35 am

Chan Rasjid wrote:Hello Saul,

I know that generally it is a waste of time to engage in debates. There is a Stephen J. Crothers who shows general relativity to be incorrect with full mathematics. Whether debates are engaged with or without very difficult mathematics solves nothing. I could just say "Saul, you don't know physics..." and you''ll continue with your protocol argument. What can I do? Say I am wrong and I repent for my foolishness! I started this thread with the arguments that Einstein's relativity is trivially invalid. It is for others to read and decide if my arguments are of value, especially for those who may want to see if there are people out there who don't accept the mainstream's total acceptance of relativity.
Every theory is incorrect somewhere. The interesting bit is where and how. At what point is general relativity incorrect? A first course in GR generally comes to an exciting climax as the student puts a small mass into the stress-energy tensor, and linearizes the equations. Drumroll please.. out comes: Newton's gravity. We can do very well in predicting behavior of satellites.. even time dilation of atomic clocks, which Newton couldn't handle.

My understanding of Crothers' work, and thanks for getting me to take another look it is well worthwhile, is that he mostly takes to task those who wield GR inappropriately, by claiming black holes, wormholes, and unicorns.. rather than claiming "GR is all wrong". The experimentalist will grudgingly admit that our measurements have at best spanned a hundred AU or so in distance and up to 1 solar mass, and anything further is educated guesswork.

Clearly, GR as we know it, alone, is not explaining galaxy formation and rotation. As such we might call it "wrong".

But lets get back to Newton and perfect absolute galilean space. Do you like that idea? Can you come up with some way to define it or build it? Could you define a system in which there was an absolute simultaneity? Because I can't. I'm happy to consider a jinnetic halal bar and/or debate any side of this one :)


Your use of "from which the rest of special relativity is derived" is showing your disingenuity. Special relativity is not == "The speed of light is 299792458 m/s PERIOD". If this is Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, no one would care; but for your insistence: ... special relativity is only a protocol... saying it is wrong is like saying the IPv4 or the English protocol is wrong.... If Saul just start with the protocol (without further postulates) "The speed of light is 299792458 m/s PERIOD" and finds that length contracts and time dilates, then I may ...
Then you may what? Length contraction and time dilatoin is indeed what is implied by the definition!! ALL the strangeness of SR, which has led so many (and my apologies if this is not what has led you) to claim the theory is insane, comes from that one definition. It is counterintuitive to say the least. Your measurement of the speed of an electromagnetic wavefront, with respect to you, depends not one iota on any acceleratoin you may have done parallel or perpendicular to the wavefront, prior to the measurement. The only way this situatoin can be arrived at is for the lengths of the meter sticks in your laboratory, and the intervals of the standard seconds, to adjust themselves according to your motion throught the aether.

IMHO being able to ditch the aether in calculatoins as superfluous is a nice party trick, but doesn't at all help the student. Einstein was quite clear that GR is an aether theory, I am quite clear the SR is an aether theory, perhaps that will help you grok it.

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by Chan Rasjid » Sat Aug 08, 2015 9:13 am

saul wrote: Every theory is incorrect somewhere. The interesting bit is where and how. At what point is general relativity incorrect? A first course in GR generally comes to an exciting climax as the student puts a small mass into the stress-energy tensor, and linearizes the equations. Drumroll please.. out comes: Newton's gravity. We can do very well in predicting behavior of satellites.. even time dilation of atomic clocks, which Newton couldn't handle.

My understanding of Crothers' work, and thanks for getting me to take another look it is well worthwhile, is that he mostly takes to task those who wield GR inappropriately, by claiming black holes, wormholes, and unicorns.. rather than claiming "GR is all wrong". The experimentalist will grudgingly admit that our measurements have at best spanned a hundred AU or so in distance and up to 1 solar mass, and anything further is educated gue
I only know some simple rudiments of physics. I would still say that the statement "Every theory is incorrect somewhere" is wrong. It is possible that a theory of physics may be said to be valid or invalid - without any need for qualification.

I may make the statements : "Newton's laws of motion is correct" or "The kinetic theory of gases is correct". I would lose my patience if someone wants to pick an argument based on my use of the attribute "correct" and try to ask "What do you mean by correct ?" (there is a parable about casting pearls before swines).

The attributes valid and invalid too may also be used without any qualification as regard a theory of physics. As an example, I consider Einstein's theory of special relativity as well as general relativity to be invalid. Here invalid has the meaning that they have no place at all in physics - they are simply to be discarded. I know this view is only that of a minority of physicists.

I am not sure of your comments about Stephen Crothers opinion on General Relativity. My understanding is that he considers the theory to be invalid - again without qualification.
saul wrote: But lets get back to Newton and perfect absolute galilean space. Do you like that idea? Can you come up with some way to define it or build it? Could you define a system in which there was an absolute simultaneity? Because I can't. I'm happy to consider a jinnetic halal bar and/or debate any side of this one :)
This is fair argument. The most interesting would be about absolute simultaneity. I can't immediately give you an answer. I will in due time. There may be others who may answer you now.
saul wrote:
Your use of "from which the rest of special relativity is derived" is showing your disingenuity. Special relativity is not == "The speed of light is 299792458 m/s PERIOD". If this is Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, no one would care; but for your insistence: ... special relativity is only a protocol... saying it is wrong is like saying the IPv4 or the English protocol is wrong.... If Saul just start with the protocol (without further postulates) "The speed of light is 299792458 m/s PERIOD" and finds that length contracts and time dilates, then I may ...
Then you may what? Length contraction and time dilatoin is indeed what is implied by the definition!! ALL the strangeness of SR, which has led so many (and my apologies if this is not what has led you) to claim the theory is insane, comes from that one definition. It is counterintuitive to say the least. Your measurement of the speed of an electromagnetic wavefront, with respect to you, depends not one iota on any acceleratoin you may have done parallel or perpendicular to the wavefront, prior to the measurement. The only way this situatoin can be arrived at is for the lengths of the meter sticks in your laboratory, and the intervals of the standard seconds, to adjust themselves according to your motion throught the aether.
About "Length contraction and time dilatoin is indeed what is implied by the definition!!". I am not sure yet if I want to engage in this debate as I believe controversies on these have gone on for a hundred years. I have no (short) answer at the moment. I may answer you if I have anything original and interesting to say.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid

User avatar
rnboyd
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:57 am
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by rnboyd » Tue Aug 11, 2015 8:29 am

Einstein himself once said, "If any part of this theory of relativity is found to be wrong, then the entire construction must be completely abandoned, for all time.". For my part, I cannot find any portion of the theory that is at all accurate to actual factual reality. It cannot be proved by any manner of physical experiment, and it has never produced any innovations or conveniences. So what good is it? It is a study in intentional obfuscation that has obstructed scientific progress for more than a century.

So-called "imaginary time" is just that: imaginary. Imaginary time is the term iCt, which is one of the foundations of Einstein's version of relativity. This construction links the speed of light with time. Einstein thought this was his greatest insight. In fact, it was his greatest blunder. There is no experimental physical evidence to support this construction. There is evidence which contradicts the indentification of time with the speed of light, such as experimental evidence of infinite velocity propagations of the Electric field, and various experimental measurements of the superluminal speed of propagation of gravity. (One such set of direct measurements I participated in with Podkletnov, with instrumented measurements performed at Tampere University in Finland.)

And what is time, actually? Kozyrev's experimental studies in Russia have determined that time is caused by a "time substance", which is embedded in the same aether fluxes which cause gravitation.

As far as universal absolute simultaneity, given an infinite propagation velocity, it is obvious that such is the case.

Mr Saul wants to argue semantics, a typical disinformation/misinformation ploy. I want to argue facts.

Please read my paper at: noosphere.princeton.edu/papers/misc/Subquantum.Plenum.doc for many important foundational understandings.

Best Regards,

Neil
The subquantum unfies all the sciences.

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 111
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by Chan Rasjid » Tue Aug 11, 2015 8:56 am

I have a little to add about the relativity theories as compared to Newton's laws of motion.

If we take away Newtonian mechanics, nothing of physics that we know would remain - not event special relativity where the Lorentz transform itself is founded on a classical relative velocity of "v" in classical inertial frame.

If we take away special relativity or all physics founded on Minkowski spacetime, all other physics based not on Minkowski spacetime would remain - that would be almost all of physics which experimental physicists and engineers ever need.

No engineer has ever the need to take into account any length contraction or time dilation in their calculations.

Best Regards,
Chan Rasjid

User avatar
rnboyd
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 7:57 am
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Einstein's relativity theories had to be invalid.

Unread post by rnboyd » Fri Aug 14, 2015 9:57 am

Dear Chan,

You are having many of the same realizations I had when I was with Project Greenglow, out of the UK, where I developed a model for gravitation after years of research, only to find out later from E.T. Whittaker's text, "History of Aether and Electricity", that exactly the same model for gravitation had been published by the Marquis de LaPlace in 1853.

As you say, remove Einstein's version of relativity and Minkowski's pseudo-manifold, and everything remains the same, reverting back to Newtonian mechanics. Except(!) quantum physics still remains and has validity, resting on SubQuantum eidetic-information-based guidances. While SR and GR are wrong and cannot be experimentally proved because they are perfectly non-physical, QM and SQM remain, and have been empirically proved as having direct physical consequences as a result of hundreds of thousands of physical experiments. (Keep it in mind that QM is absolutely incomplete, and that Bell's theorum has been violated hugely, in a 30 year long set of experiments done at of Princeton's PEAR labs, comprising a data base larger than that which was used to prove QM in the first place.) Quantum Mechanics is vastly experimentally validated, though incomplete, and is completed by sentient SubQuantum eidetic information guidances.

While SR and GR have not produced any conveniences or innovations after more than 100 years, quantum theory has produced tens of thousands of them. So we should give precedence to QM and SQM, and get rid of SR and GR.

We should base our physical understandings on classical mechanics (except that classical thermodynamics is mostly wrong [energy is not conserved!]), the original quaternionic form of the Maxwell equations, QM, and on the SubQuantum (which drives everything else). Also see Tony Smith http://www.valdostamuseum.com/hamsmith/TShome.html and Prof. Kiehn's works. And don't forget Kozyrev, Chernetski, and Gariaev in Russia, just to name a few.

I appreciate your accomplishments :)

Neil
The subquantum unfies all the sciences.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests