MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Is Relativity Nonsense? (Astrophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As many of you must have noticed by now, the work of the Applied Epistemology Library in Physics and Astrophysics owes all its success to Newton. Time and time again, we find hidden "truths" just by applying the simple rules of Newtonian Physics. This result is consistent with my long-held hunch that something is "wrong" with Relativity -- and that quantum-physics is a pseudo-science existing only to patch up anomalies inherent in a faulty model.

Today, I read a dramatic paper online. I invite you all to read it because I desperately seek comment upon it. I came across this paper because I wished to use the 1919 eclipse observations "confirming" Enstein's work, as an example of how science works best. Now I find that the example may be of just the opposite (which leaves me with a gigantic hole in my paper I now need to fill with something else!). Have a look at the following article.
Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century
www.aulis.com/albert_einstein.htm
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

something is "wrong" with Relativity -- and quantum-physics is a pseudo-science existing only to patch up anomolies inherent in a faulty model.

It was always my understanding that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics make for poor bed-fellows. If String Theory or some such modern marvel manages to knit them seamlessly together, then its security depends on its structural relationship with Relativity. (Can you kick away one stool and still say "never mind"?) I believe Quantum Mechanics has a lot going for it in its own right and is not, at base, dependent upon Relativity (though its superstructure may now be, for all I know).

I invite you all to read it because I desperately seek comment upon it.

In general tone and approach, this is a very unscientific paper. Far too ad hominem. The preoccupation is with plagiarism, which doesn't actually have any bearing on the truth of the theory. But there is some relevant -- and perhaps revealing -- material concernings the basic 1919 experiment, viz

"We had to carry out our programme of photographs on faith..."
"The cloudy weather upset my plans and I had to treat the measures in a different way from what I intended"
"The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known and simple formula of physical optics"
"Not a single one of the fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space, of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light
"

The absurdity of the data collected during the Eclipse of 1919 was demonstrated by Poor (1930), who pointed out that 85% of the data were discarded from the South American eclipse due to "accidental error". What makes this so suspicious is that both the instruments and the physical conditions were not conducive to making measurements of great precision. As pointed out in a 2002 Internet article by the British Institute of Precise Physics, the cap cameras used in the expeditions were accurate to only 1/25th of a degree. This meant that just for the cap camera uncertainty alone, Eddington was reading values over 200 times too precise! Fascinating and too-little-heard stuff, but still not really concerned with the status of the theory.

You're right to test the joints in Einstein's theory, Ish, but this paper is not an effective tool for the job.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Dan, your criticisms of the ad hominem nature of the arguments needs a comment. Science correctly pats itself on the back for avoiding ad hominem problems via the scientific method but in the Special Case of Einstein this has to be tempered. Einstein has been elevated not merely to canonical status by the world at large but by scientists (and more pertinently atomic physicists in particular...though they like to be a bit sniffy about him to emphasise their own elite status.)

No scientist can approach Einstein's work as though it were just "science". Criticism is akin to parricide. A bit of this tension can be vaguely scried in the famous disputes between the Quantum Mechanicals and Einstein's lofty rejection of them. Einstein for one certainly believed his own PR.

Oddly enough, this even affects me. I was somewhat shocked to read the trenchant criticism in the paper Ishmael gave us. Anybody else feel this?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Has the experiment been repeated with modern equipment, capable of measuring the effect accurately? Surely the light-bending effect of gravity has been observed since.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I dunno, but I doubt it. They talk about Black Holes at the centres of galaxies as if they're certainties... and they talk about expecting to see light bend round them... or such-n-such is reckoned to be evidence of it... but I've never heard that there is direct, anywhere-near-irrefutable evidence for either.

All the other results will be taken as indirect corroboration.
Michaelson & Morley tried to find evidence of the ether... and failed. Nothing like it has been tried again, as far as I know, so whether that was no proof of anything or proof that there's no ether, we cannot tell. What is certain is that it has always been taken to support Einstein.

And even if light is shown to bend, it doesn't necessarily corroborate the theory. Einstein could be inspirational without being correct. Look at Nils Bohr.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The phenomenon has been observed but its effect and any support for the General Theory that may be derived from it are now being called into question by a small but vociferous group of scientists.

According to General Relativity, the wavelength of light (or any other form of electromagnetic radiation) passing through a gravitational field will be shifted towards redder regions of the spectrum known to astronomers as gravitational redshift. Einstein's theory says that as a photon fights its way out of a gravitational field, it loses energy and its colour reddens. Gravitational redshifts have been observed in diverse settings.

This principle has been used by astronomy to explain the expanding universe a la Big Bang Theory. The astronomer Halton Arp, who now resides in Germany after having much of his "observation time" curtailed at US radio telescopes, has totally debunked red shift as a means of predicting either the expanding universe or the veracity of Einstein's theory of relativity.

The most recognisable equation of all time, E = mc2, is attributed by orthodoxy to be the sole province of Einstein. However, the conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter was known to Sir Isaac Newton (Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another). The equation can also be attributed to S. Tolver Preston, Jules Henri Poincare and Olinto De Pretto. All of whom wrote or lectured on the subject before Einstein. Since Einstein never correctly derived E = mc2, there appears nothing to connect the equation with anything original by Einstein.
Send private message
TelMiles


In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There's a theory that seems to show the limitations of physics. It says that purely from a physics point of view, the Earth doesn't make sense, that its gravity should be much greater given its mass. This has led to a further theory that the Earth's gravity may be 'leaking'. Don't know where to though.
_________________
Against all Gods.
Send private message Send e-mail
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Dan, your criticisms of the ad hominem arguments are not quite right (though right enough).

I don't mind the ad hominem attacks: he might have a very valid point. But it has nothing to do with the science: which orthodoxy can pounce on in order to rubbish the whole question -- though this, as you say, will just be their reason as slave to their passion.

I was somewhat shocked to read the trenchant criticism in the paper Ishmael gave us. Anybody else feel this?

This is dangerous ground. There's a book called something like One Hundred Authors Against Einstein, but no matter what they have to say, they'll be dismissed as Nazis -- which some of them, no doubt, were.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Oddly enough, this even affects me. I was somewhat shocked to read the trenchant criticism in the paper Ishmael gave us. Anybody else feel this?

I was! I was completely shocked!

Now mind you, this same Web site promotes the "Apollo Moon Mission Conspiracy" theory so...take it all with some grain of salt. But the essay itself appears to rely upon very solid stuff. For example, it mostly quotes other scientists who have raised the same objections to the credit given Einstein for Relativity.

And here's the other thing, not mentioned in the paper. After Relativity, Einstein did NOTHING ELSE! That was it! He shot his wad and fell into an intellectual petite mort lasting the remainder of his life.

Compare that to you (or, even, dare I say, me). You can't stop coming up with new ideas and your mind is drawn to any question in any field. How could Einstein be such a genius and make only one contribution, in his youth at that, then never add a thing more to "the literature?"

Compare him to Newton! There is no comparison -- though it is always made. Einstein was simply no Newton...which leads to the rather disconcerting realization that there has been no Newton since....Newton.

Which of itself suggests a need for some explaining. Either we live in a dark age of science, Newton was some sort of singular genius almost alone and unequalled in history, or....Newton himself was no Newton!
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The most recognisable equation of all time is E = mc2 is attributed by orthodoxy to be the sole province of Einstein. However, the conversion of matter into energy and energy into matter was known to Sir Isaac Newton (Gross bodies and light are convertible into one another).

The equation can also be attributed to S. Tolver Preston, Jules Henri Poincaré and Olinto De Pretto. All of whom wrote or lectured on the subject before Einstein. Since Einstein never correctly derived E = mc2, there appears nothing to connect the equation with anything original by Einstein
.

This is a direct quote, lightly pruned, from one or more places on the internet. Please make it clear where your own thoughts end and someone else's begin!

Incidentally, it is a misconception about Relativity that the nuclear industry demonstrates that, as Newton puts it, "gross bodies and light are convertible into one another". Even in a nuclear explosion, or the supposed reduction of mass experienced by the Sun {Neither of which has been confirmed by observation, I'll wager}, it's not (even in theory) that particles of matter disappear and are transformed into energy. Rather, the binding energies (that go into holding the nuclei together) of the products of the reaction differ from those of the parent atoms, which does show up in their atomic weights.

But certainly, there is no reason to think mass-energy equivalence is the preserve of Einstein's Relativity.

---

Also incidentally, prior work is recognised, at least a little bit, by the physics community in that the Equations of Special Relativity are always known as the Lorentz Transformation. But if I remember rightly, this is somewhat bizarre, because they're not quite as Lorentz would have them!

---

Also incidentally, Einstein's "miraculous year" was 1905, when he published papers on Special Relativity {applying to the restricted case of inertial motion coz gravity and acceleration made it too hard} and the derivation of E = mc2 {not exactly in that form}, but also on the photoelectric effect {for which, rightly, he eventually won the Nobel Prize}, Brownian motion of small particles and a method for determining the sizes of molecules {which no one ever seems to remember}.

Riemannian geometry -- something to do with curved, non-Euclidean space {in the mathematical sense} and tensors {which are currently way over my head... and I have used logarithms since leaving school...} -- turned out to be the key to making an elegant job of including gravity and acceleration in the theory. The General Theory of Relativity was published in 1915.

After that, Einstein spent time trying to come up with a theory of everything whilst falling out with everyone else in the world, except pacifists.

---

Also incidentally, I haven't returned to this point in the Great Book of Nordenson yet, but IIRC, the difference between Einstein's prediction and the actual precession of the perihelion of Mercury was ENORMOUS compared to the uncertainties in the factors that go into the equation. That is, there is plenty of scope for a little or a lot to be wrong with the formula/theory.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Einstein's theory was disavowed from the very beginning by the famous or infamous (depending on whose side you were on) Michelson-Morley experiment. This experiment showed the Ether did exist. In short that space was not an empty vacuum. It has been written into Physics history as a NULL result when in fact it showed a slightly POSITIVE result.

The M-M experiment was later reconfirmed by Dayton Miller in what can only be described as one of the most anally precise scientific experiments of all time given the lengths he went to to eliminate all the variables. Miller took multiple readings at various altitudes and throughout the course of a Sidereal year to verify the M-M result with every reading.

The same experiment was later carried out by Morley-Miller, Sagnac, Michelson-Gale and Michelson-Pease-Pearson. All these reconfirmed the original positive result. The Ether existed. But by the 1930's Einstein's theory of relativity was an accepted fact.

Miller was adamant in his results:
"The effect of ether-drift has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." -- Dayton Miller

And Einstein admitted that a positive result would be a death knell for his theory.
"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid.
Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."

-- Albert Einstein, 1925

Einstein refused to believe the positive result and ignored it as necessary error of the experiment. As every experiment showed a positive result this was hardly justified. Astronomy and Physics had begun a long and fruitless journey down a dead-end street.

The evidence accumulated since the beginning of the Space Age has only reconfirmed the positive result of those early experimenters: the Ether does exist and therefore Einstein was WRONG. We now know the Ether as Plasma -- the 4th state of matter and the most abundant in the universe.

Starlight is not warped by gravitation it is merely REFRACTED by the denser plasma that forms a shell around all stars. Just like a spoon in a glass of water or light through a glass prism. Therefore Space is not curved, the speed of light is not a fixed barrier and time doesn't dilate. There is no Space-Time, just Universal Time; no 4th dimension just the 3 that we experience; no possibility of time travel; no warped space just linear space and definitely no other parallel dimensions. We live in a physical universe not a mathematical construct.

We live in a real world not a Pixar movie. CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) is just a way cooler way of saying Mathematic Modelling.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

From the NewScientist.com news service, 24 January 2008:

Comet samples are surprisingly asteroid-like

By David Shiga

Samples of Comet Wild 2 suggest it is made of rocky material, like an asteroid, rather than the fluffy dust expected of a comet. The object may be a refugee that formed in the asteroid belt before getting kicked to the chilly fringes of the solar system, or it might have formed in that frigid realm from material thrown out of the inner solar system, scientists say.


NASA's Stardust mission swung by comet Wild 2 in 2004 to capture particles shed by the 5-kilometre object and returned them to Earth in 2006. Since then, scientists have been carefully analysing the microscopic fragments it collected.

Early on, scientists found surprising evidence that Wild 2 contained some material from the inner solar system that had been heated to more than 1000 C due to its proximity to the Sun.

Now, scientists have been surprised again as further study suggests Wild 2 is made mostly of material from the inner solar system, and that the object has a composition more like that of an asteroid than what was expected of a comet. The conclusion comes from a study led by Hope Ishii of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in Livermore, California, US.

Note that 'Inner Solar System' is a cover phrase that really means that EVERYTHING from Jupiter to the Sun is MADE FROM THE SAME STUFF.

That's right, every Planet, Moon, Asteroid, Comet and piece of space debris is from the same origin. With the possible exception of Venus which is less than 10,000 years old. So the verdict is out on that one, but it's safe to say that it is also, given the latest data we have from space probes, made of the same stuff too.

This is enough to keep the combined supercomputer resources of MIT, Cal Tech and JPL busy for the next 5 years coming up with a new 'Walt Disney' version of the universe.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Michelson-Morley... has been written into Physics history as a NULL result when in fact it showed a slightly POSITIVE result... later reconfirmed by Dayton Miller... Morley-Miller, Sagnac, Michelson-Gale and Michelson-Pease-Pearson. All these reconfirmed the original positive result.

Well, I'll be jiggered! I was always given to understand that Michelson-Morley was it, once and for all time. (Which is exceeding rash for scientists... but we know they're humans: it is they who think they are superhumans.)

I haven't read M-M's paper, On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether, but it ends

"There remain three other methods, all astronomical, for attacking the problem of the motion of the solar system through space...
3. ...the difference in the results found for the velocity of light when Jupiter is nearest to and farthest from the line of motion will give not merely the motion of the solar system with reference to the stars, but with reference to the luminiferous ether itself."


They're still assuming the ether exists and looking for ward to better experimental results.

Wiki says
"After all this thought and preparation, the experiment became what might be called the most famous failed experiment to date... they concluded that the measured velocity was approximately one-sixth of the expected velocity of the Earth's motion in orbit and 'certainly less than one-fourth.'

-- Not even an order of magnitude out!? In astrophysics, that's bang on. --

Although this small 'velocity' was measured, it was considered far too small to be used as evidence of aether, and it was later said to be within the range of an experimental error that would allow the speed to actually be zero."
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

We now know the Ether as Plasma - the 4th state of matter and the most abundant in the universe.

Sorry, this can't be right. The luminiferous aether isn't any old widely distributed stuff with weird properties. It's supposed to pervade all space and be the medium through which EM waves travel, the thing that does the oscillating. (How the aether can fail to interact with matter on the whole, but then interact with it any time and every time we want it to, is not explained.)

Compare: Sound and water waves are transmitted through their media by the a gazillion mechanical interactions, each molecule up-close-and-personal with the next. If there is a gap so that one lot of molecules can not jostle the next, the wave does not pass. {Compare again, anyone who knows a little electronics: capacitors and open-circuits are really the same thing, but the parameters of the gap differ: capacitor plates allow charge interaction, open-circuits are too big for current to flow.}

Plasma may be little known or widely misunderstood, but it is an ordinary state of matter: atoms and molecules as we know them, split into ions and electrons.

We know that light is relayed from atom to atom and that the speed of light differs through different materials, including plasmas. But we also know it passes where there is no material at all.

If plasma were the medium, like air molecules, the particles would have to contact each other. And we know the place doesn't have to be full of ions for EM waves to pass.

If they only have to move to influence their nearest neighbours, as with electrical signals that go much faster than the electrons themselves {Explanation on request.}, then it's the aether that is supposed to propagate the electric field between them.
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wiki links the Michelson-Morley experiment to measurements of gravitational waves, which have so far been inferred indirectly.

"Pulsars are rapidly rotating neutron stars which emit regular radio pulses as they rotate."

In narrow beams, they reckon. There must be many more than we can see coz most beams will not shine directly at us.

Come to think of it, there ought to be some pulsars we can only see for, say, 6 months at a time as we go in and out of the path of the beam. I wonder if there are any.

"Observations of pulsars in orbit around other stars have all demonstrated substantial periapsis precessions that cannot be accounted for classically but can be accounted for by using general relativity. For example, the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar (a pair of neutron stars in which one is detected as a pulsar) has an observed precession of over 4° of arc per year. This precession has been used to compute the masses of the components."

Assuming Relativity to be correct, of course.

"Gravitational waves have been indirectly detected from the Hulse-Taylor binary. Precise timing of the pulses show that the stars orbit only approximately according to Kepler's Laws, - over time they gradually spiral towards each other, demonstrating an energy loss in close agreement with the predicted energy radiated by gravitational waves. Thus, although the waves have not been directly measured, their effect seems necessary to explain the orbits."

So far, so so. (So far, so good for Taylor and Hulse, who won a Nobel Prize.)

"A "double pulsar" discovered in 2003, J0737−3039, has a perihelion precession of 16.90o per year; unlike the Hulse-Taylor binary, both neutron stars are detected as pulsars, allowing precision timing of both members of the system. Due to this, the tight orbit, the fact that the system is almost edge-on, and the very low transverse velocity of the system as seen from Earth, J0737−3039 provides by far the best system for strong-field tests of general relativity known so far."

Hang on. If this system is edge-on, then we are in the same plane as those two pulsars. So enormously strong jets of radiation reaching us means enormously strong jets of radiation, created by enormously strong magnetic fields, crossing the orbital plane 40 times a second! (The faster one 'pulses' every 23 milliseconds.) So these beams of radiation are impinging on each other a lot and these things are less than 150,000 miles apart. Yet the wonkiness of their orbits is to be explained as Relativistic gravitational waves??? Pull the other one.

I have nothing against the idea of gravitational waves, by the way.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Jump to:  
Page 1 of 8

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group