Why Einstein will never be wrong

Why Einstein will never be wrong
Einstein Lecturing. Credit: Ferdinand Schmutzer, Public Domain

One of the benefits of being an astrophysicist is your weekly email from someone who claims to have "proven Einstein wrong". These either contain no mathematical equations and use phrases such as "it is obvious that..", or they are page after page of complex equations with dozens of scientific terms used in non-traditional ways. They all get deleted pretty quickly, not because astrophysicists are too indoctrinated in established theories, but because none of them acknowledge how theories get replaced.

For example, in the late 1700s there was a theory of heat known as caloric. The basic idea of caloric was that it was a fluid that existed within materials. This fluid was self-repellant, meaning it would try to spread out as evenly as possible. We couldn't observe this fluid directly, but the more caloric a material has the greater its temperature.

From this theory you get several predictions that actually work. Since you can't create or destroy caloric, heat (energy) is conserved. If you put a cold object next to a hot object, the caloric in the hot object will spread out to the cold object until they reach the same temperature. When air expands, the caloric is spread out more thinly, thus the temperature drops. When air is compressed there is more caloric per volume, and the temperature rises.

We now know there is no "heat fluid" known as caloric. Heat is a property of the motion (kinetic energy) of atoms or molecules in a material. So in physics we've dropped the caloric model in terms of . You could say we now know that the caloric model is completely wrong.

Except it isn't. At least no more wrong than it ever was.

The basic assumption of a "heat fluid" doesn't match reality, but the model makes predictions that are correct. In fact the caloric model works as well today as it did in the late 1700s. We don't use it anymore because we have newer models that work better. Kinetic theory makes all the predictions caloric does and more. Kinetic theory even explains how the thermal energy of a material can be approximated as a fluid.

Why Einstein will never be wrong
Ice-calorimeter from Antoine Lavoisier’s 1789 Elements of Chemistry.

This is a key aspect of scientific theories. If you want to replace a robust with a new one, the new theory must be able to do more than the old one. When you replace the old theory you now understand the limits of that theory and how to move beyond it.

In some cases even when an old theory is supplanted we continue to use it. Such an example can be seen in Newton's law of . When Newton proposed his theory of universal gravity in the 1600s, he described gravity as a force of attraction between all masses. This allowed for the correct prediction of the motion of the planets, the discovery of Neptune, the basic relation between a star's mass and its temperature, and on and on. Newtonian gravity was and is a robust scientific theory.

Then in the early 1900s Einstein proposed a different model known as . The basic premise of this theory is that gravity is due to the curvature of space and time by masses. Even though Einstein's gravity model is radically different from Newton's, the mathematics of the theory shows that Newton's equations are approximate solutions to Einstein's equations. Everything Newton's gravity predicts, Einstein's does as well. But Einstein also allows us to correctly model black holes, the big bang, the precession of Mercury's orbit, time dilation, and more, all of which have been experimentally validated.

So Einstein trumps Newton. But Einstein's theory is much more difficult to work with than Newton's, so often we just use Newton's equations to calculate things. For example, the motion of satellites, or exoplanets. If we don't need the precision of Einstein's theory, we simply use Newton to get an answer that is "good enough." We may have proven Newton's theory "wrong", but the theory is still as useful and accurate as it ever was.

Why Einstein will never be wrong
Binary waves from black holes. Credit: K. Thorne (Caltech) , T. Carnahan (NASA GSFC)

Unfortunately, many budding Einsteins don't understand this.

To begin with, Einstein's gravity will never be proven wrong by a theory. It will be proven wrong by showing that the predictions of general relativity don't work. Einstein's theory didn't supplant Newton's until we had experimental evidence that agreed with Einstein and didn't agree with Newton. So unless you have experimental evidence that clearly contradicts general relativity, claims of "disproving Einstein" will fall on deaf ears.

The other way to trump Einstein would be to develop a theory that clearly shows how Einstein's theory is an approximation of your new theory, or how the experimental tests general relativity has passed are also passed by your theory. Ideally, your new theory will also make new predictions that can be tested in a reasonable way. If you can do that, and can present your ideas clearly, you will be listened to. String theory and entropic gravity are examples of models that try to do just that.

But even if someone succeeds in creating a theory better than Einstein's (and someone almost certainly will), Einstein's theory will still be as valid as it ever was. Einstein won't have been proven wrong, we'll simply understand the limits of his .


Explore further

It's Einstein versus Newton again

Source: Universe Today
Citation: Why Einstein will never be wrong (2014, January 14) retrieved 26 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-01-einstein-wrong.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jan 14, 2014
Gravity is a term for a force that we can't explain, but we excellent models for. We know the how but not the why. Where I think both theories fail is in accounting for the molecular composition of the objects displaying gravitational forces. The atom is the basic structure that creates interaction within our universe, so the force begins there in my opinion.

Jan 14, 2014
The article phys.org needs, even if it's the article many commentors don't want.

Scroof: actually we can explain it very well. Because it's not a force. It's the free-body motion through curved space-time. Mass changes how rulers measure lengths and how clocks measure time in its vicinity. And when you let a body move about feeling no forces in such a curved measure of space-time, it behaves *as if* there's a force of gravity.

Now why does the universe behave in such a way? [ie, that the stress-energy tensor field equals a curvature tensor field] Well we don't have any deeper answer yet than... it does. How do you calculate the curvature of a single quantum particle (like an atom)? We don't know, we're waiting for better maths to calculate how that happens.

Jan 14, 2014
These either contain no mathematical equations and use phrases such as "it is obvious that..",
Lol for sure! To that I would add " Anyone with half a brain can see that.." and "Mainstream science is too indoctrinated to understand that...."

Great article!

And great response shavera!

Jan 14, 2014
The article phys.org needs, even if it's the article many commentors don't want.


I would take that a step further; this is the article that needs to be reprinted in grade school and high school science books.

Jan 14, 2014
no_fate: gravity is no more a force than "centrifugal" force is a force. It's known in physics as a "fictitious" force, a force that arises from choosing non-inertial reference frames. Standing on the ground is a non-inertial reference frame because you're not in free fall towards a body's center (corollary to the equivalence principle of GR). So much like how a turning car feels like there's a force "outward" against the door, there feels as if there's a force "down" due to our non-IRF.

But why do two bodies attract each other? Simple. Spherical masses are equivalent to Schwarzschild metrics. Free bodies moving through Schwarzschild metrics move on orbits. If you use a Lagrangian in the curved space-time for a free body particle, a term *like a potential energy* appears out of the mathematics of the curved space *alone*. It really truly is not a force.

Jan 14, 2014
The only reason I get into this is because it's such a HUGE and common misconception that science does not understand gravitation. We understand it exceedingly well. To a point. We don't know exactly why Stress-Energy = Curvature is true, except maybe that that just is how the universe is. And we don't know how to *calculate* the curvature for quantum particles, but we have a lot of really good ideas on how we may in the future.

And like this article points out, even when we do find out how these things are calculable, all we'll have is a new theory that explains some specific narrow regime of data, while GR is likely to continue to explain all the other data we have that's supported it thus far.

Jan 14, 2014
Yagh, good post, but one sentence too much. It would improve by skipping: "String theory and entropic gravity are examples of models that try to do just that." Not because they don't try, but just because they didn't deliver.

Jan 14, 2014
@shavera

So what is a force? Evidently, GR does away with forces. However, everything else seems to be described by a force (strong, weak and electromagnetic). So is this the mismatch between gravity and field theory.? Gravity does away with the concept of force while the rest of the world has forces but the wrong geometry?

Jan 14, 2014
The only reason I get into this is because it's such a HUGE and common misconception that science does not understand gravitation. We understand it exceedingly well. To a point.


Science can predict with amazing accuracy the interaction of gravity between celestial bodies, but don't misconstrue that as "understanding". GR is not a flawless theory, there are many things it can't explain, one of which being the rotational speed of the outer edges of spiral galaxies. So does that mean spacetime doesn't apply to the galactic level? And please don't say "we think it's dark matter"...

Jan 14, 2014
Gravity is pulling force, from Newton to Einstein; everybody claimed it, only its cause had been the matter of doubt. But, Einstein claimed that the depression of space-time generates pulling force. These concepts need review because it is unable to explain many of the 'cosmic phenomenons'. So, 'out of box thinking' is essential. Actually 'Gravity' is an 'effect', which is pulling by nature, but its 'real cause' is not a pulling force, as it has been assumed, claimed & proved time and again. The 'real cause' is the "pushing force"- the single force of the universe that governs all the phenomenon of the universe. This 5th force is created by 'unification of dark energy'. It explain why we stand on earth, why value of the acceleration due to gravity is more on earth surface, how tides form, why a satellite feels extra force while going other side of the moon, why our galaxies, stars, planets, moons, satellites etc. are moving in definite path. This concept will change our STANDARD MODEL.

Jan 14, 2014
It explain why we stand on earth, why value of the acceleration due to gravity is more on earth surface, how tides form, why a satellite feels extra force while going other side of the moon, why our galaxies, stars, planets, moons, satellites etc. are moving in definite path. This concept will change our STANDARD MODEL.


Because its obvious, anyone with half a brain can see it, and mainstream would accept the idea except that scientists are too indoctrinated to understand what you're saying, right shreekant?

Jan 14, 2014
@SHREEKANT

If dark energy as the solution is so clear, then why does it only interact on a gravitational level? Also, how does that explain the huge PULL that is exerted on anything near a black hole? While I'm no physicist, dark energy/matter seems to be a cop out to try and explain the unexplained. Dark matter doesn't interact with matter, so how can you ever scientifically prove it? I know there are current experiments set up to try and prove it's real, but I remain skeptical we will ever find any resolution to this dark energy problem.

Jan 14, 2014
These either contain no mathematical equations and use phrases such as "it is obvious that..", or they are page after page of complex equations with dozens of scientific terms used in non-traditional ways.

...Unfortunately, many budding Einsteins don't understand this.

Oh boy. That must hit home for a couple of people on this site.

Though to call them 'budding Einsteins' is like calling a pile of turds a Picasso picture.

Jan 14, 2014
Why Einstein will never be wrong
Maybe I'm getting idealistic and old-fashioned - but so far I believed, the science is based on falsification of theories, not their adoration.
We may have proven Newton's theory "wrong", but the theory is still as useful and accurate as it ever was
So why the Einstein's theory should be an exception? Actually most of space-time curvature in the observable universe is represented with dark matter and dark energy and this stuff defies general relativity quite well. We are already living in the world, where the classical relativity plays a role of minor idealized model from this perspective. The "useful" ≠ "universally correct". After all, the epicycle theory has been useful in its time too.

Jan 14, 2014
actually we can explain it very well. Because it's not a force. It's the free-body motion through curved space-time. Mass changes how rulers measure lengths and how clocks measure time in its vicinity
How it does change it? Actually Einstein just used the classical Newtonian gravitational law for quantification of this action (the gravitational law of falling body is used for transform of metric tensor to the stress energy tensor in derivation of Einstein's field equations). But the relativity does explain, why the matter curves the space-time around itself any better, than the gravitational law itself. It's just a regression - sorta epicycle model fitted to observations.

Jan 14, 2014
@Shavera: You said "gravity is no more a force than "centrifugal" force is a force. It's known in physics as a "fictitious" force..."

Force is defined as the time rate of change of momentum. It is a definition. To that effect, centrifugal forces are forces. Use of the term "fictitious" was made during a time when people thought there were true forces and non-true forces. But forces are only measured by their effects. To that extend, a centrifugal is a force but if you wish you can call it an "inertial force" Calling it fictitious does not make any sense. If you are not convinced about the real effects of centrifugal forces, just recall what happened recently to a train in Spain. A "fictitious" force do you think was the cause of so many deaths?

Now, GR cannot be united with QM, the case is closed. Either QM is wrong or GR is wrong. Now, QM is responsible for a substantial fraction of the GDP of USA. Should we trash it?

Jan 14, 2014
Heat is a property of the motion (kinetic energy) of atoms or molecules in a material.


This is a contradiction, since most of the non-stellar matter in the universe, i.e. dust and gas, is moving around at insane velocities, hence very high kinetic energy, but has a "temperature" of a few kelvin.

While that definition may make sense within a stationary frame, and in the context of a molecule within a glass of water, it makes no sense whatever on a cosmic scale or in terms of inertial motion or even accelerated motion in space.

Shavera:

If Gravity is not a "Force," then I dare you to go get a cinder block and hold it a meter above your foot, and drop it.

In the both the classical sense and common sense, it is obvious that Gravity converts one form of energy (or at least a momentum potential,) into another form. In this case what we call "Gravitational Potential Energy" into Kinetic Energy, or Momentum, depending on how you measure.

Jan 14, 2014
Not only is Gravity not a ficticious force, but Hydroelectric dams rely on gravity to convert potential energy into electricity. No matter how you squirm about this issue, this conversion of energy is not explained by some mere warping or bias in the shape of space-time, since changing the length of a second or of a meter is irrelevant to the functioning of the system.

Rest assured, the electricity which comes out of the ~20% to 30% efficient turbine is the product of a real force, converting one form of energy (or momentum) into another form of energy (or momentum). Note that energy and momentum are not identical mathematically, but I use both here to make a point.

Not only is all of that true, but you can then use the electricity, if you so choose, to pump water back up in elevation some place else, such as in a high-rise office building for waste management.

If gravity is not a force, why does it produce substance with units equal to "Work" and "energy"?!?

BS.

Jan 14, 2014
If you want to further prove that Gravity is a real force, take that electricity from the Hydro-dam and use it for an electric heater or a laser.

If it were not an actual "Substance," an actual "Force," then that would not work, because the production of electricity or laser light has absolutely nothing to do with the shape of space or time.

Another way to prove gravity is an actual force is to compare dropping something like a vase from a certain height, using the classical calculation of momentum and kinetic energy at impact, and compare that to an identical vase being hit by a thrown (or shot) blunt object at the same velocity, or simply throwing/shooting the vase into a wall at the same velocity....

...what do you find?

The results are identical. Well, the broken pieces will fall under gravity after the impact with the wall, but the force involved is the same.

Jan 14, 2014
Returning to the contradictory heat definition, it is quite easy to use the defintion of heat based on kinetic energy to refute itself.

Pick an object, preferrably something very "cold" in the oort cloud or inter-galactic/interstellar space.

Calculate it's kinetic energy.

Observe it's temperature based on radiological/IR properties.

Note that Kinetic Energy in many cases will be much higher because the velocity in m/s is so high, while the supposed temperature based on IR is so low ( a few kelvin).

The kinetic energy of a kilogram of matter moving 20000m/s (some stuff in solar system) is 200,000,000 Joules.

The supposed thermal energy of a kilogram of water at 8 kelvin is about 16,864,000 Joules.

Which is only about 8% of the kinetic energy calculated from proper motion.

Clearly, the two, kinetic energy and heat, are not identical, though the formula makes them identical. Collisions and friction can convert from one form of energy to another, but that isn't the same.

Jan 14, 2014
This reminds me of the "Sigma" problem in the relationship of Black Holes vs Galaxy size and speed. I've seen this flaw in the theory before and pointed it out, and I'll do so again.

In the theory, it is claimed that the Super-Massive black hole of a galaxy is always approximately 1/2 of 1 percent (0.005) of the galaxy's mass.

I immediately recognized this as being absolutely wrong, because the black hole in our own galaxy is nowhere near 1 Billion solar masses vs the 200 to 400 billion stars in the galaxy. In fact, the SMBH is nearly 1000 times smaller than that.

It is quite embarrassing, or should be, for these astronomers to overlook such a simple, yet enormous (3 orders of magnitude) flaw in their theory.

it suggests that there is a mistake somewhere, either:

1, The theory is just plain wrong (likely).
2, There is something special about the Milky Way.
3, There is an error in measuring either all the other Galaxies(highly likely,) or else our own galaxy.
4,??? other errors?

Jan 14, 2014
Einstein's Special and General Relativity theories are are what physicists call "local" theories in that they map all motion into a spatial reference system, and limit the maximum speed of any physical effect to speeds less than that of light. However, experiments have since shown that electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields have effects that occur so rapidly the speed of propagation cannot even be measured. Their actions are essentially instantaneous (i.e., "non-local") Additionally, numerous experiments of different experimental designs done by different groups over a span of several decades have demonstrated that our physical world is definitely a "non-local" one. This means that Relativity is limited to describing reference system effects only--a useful but not fundamental capability.

A logical HALF of our physics knowhow is still stuck back in 1905. Except for quantum mechanics (which has a limited scope), there are no courses taught in non-local physics.

Jan 14, 2014
The fact that the Milky Way is a 3 orders of magnitude outlier proves absolutely that either something is wrong with the theory, or something is wrong with the measurements, or both. After all, if the Milky Way is special, then the theory is wrong anyway, since it can't possibly predict a 3 orders of magnitude outlier.

Do you see how this works yet?

Rational examination, even casually, totally destroys the work of people who spend their whole career doing this stuff, on the basis of what is obviously faulty reasoning, oversight, observational error, or math errors.

The reason that was relevant is well, the program on "Science" last night had that as a major topic/talking point, and I'd seen it before and debunked it before, and immediately remembered and recognized the flaw, as they even mentioned the numbers again on the program.

Point here being the "Experts" are absolutely wrong and ridiculous.

If they can be that wrong about one thing, they can be that wrong about others.

Jan 14, 2014
BrianFraser:

A shadow can move faster than the speed of light, in principle, but it is discounted because we normally explain shadows as being the "absence of light".

Yet, the absence of something is itself "information". For example, you could invent a code language where omitting a character from a stream is in fact information. That type of code is more complicate and impractical in most cases, but I could even present benefits of that type of code vs normal codes. What does that mean? Again, the fact something is missing is information, even tangible information.

And yes, Dark Energy as well as the expansion of space-time (or whatever the metric of the universe is really in,) beyond the light-horizon (if one exists,) is non-local because it's physical parameters can no longer be studied by observation. Even if you could observe it, you'd find things moving faster than the speed of light, yet you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between proper motion and cosmic motion.

Jan 14, 2014
Ain't no gravity, it's all expansion. See "The Situation of Gravity - Third Edition".

Jan 14, 2014
Dear Phys.org,

Please eliminate the comments section. It is a black hole of ignorance. Thank you.

A Concerned Reader.

Jan 14, 2014
Returners, you spent all that time doing math proving "them" wrong....maybe you should have started with the right assumptions?

the bulge, son, the bulge. not the galaxy. the galaxy bulge. a 1:700 ratio between the size of the SMBH and the galaxy bulge. have i gotten through to you yet???

and nowhere will you find a quotable source that says "there is always...." you may find verbage like "...appeared to have a constant relation..."

and yes, already these models from 20 years ago have found to not be complete.

next time you decide that 20 minutes of math has disproven thousands of scientists, which proves that science is hogwash.....slow down, take a deep breath, and look for the mistake you made. it's there. you will find it. if you try. which you won't....sigh.

Jan 14, 2014
Sorry I was away from being able to answer questions previously, but for sure, when you work through the equations of relativity and do a Lagrangian for a free body in curved space time, a potential term *arises* from the curvature, full stop.

Contrarily, if you were floating in an elevator, would you know if the elevator was floating in deep space or falling down an evacuated elevator shaft? You wouldn't. Since you can't tell the difference between the two, you must not be accelerating in either case. Therefore free fall is equivalent to being at rest. That's the equivalence principle.

Now to go to all the "drop a cinder block" comments, what you are failing to realize is that the cinder block *resumes* its free fall "rest" state, and it is your foot suddenly accelerating toward the block. (since all intertial rest frames are valid, and the block is an inertial rest frame ala equivalence principle above, then the block's frame of reference it is your foot preventing *its* inertia)

Jan 14, 2014
rtrader: Well, the classical definition of force as a rate-change of momentum is... difficult to use here, per se. We can always come up with additional "forces" like force of friction, normal force, etc. But *fundamentally* forces come from the momentum exchange of gauge bosons between fermions. The fundamental forces are photons carrying EM, W and Z bosons carrying weak forces, and gluons carrying the strong force. There is no similar particle exchanging gravitation (no that's not what a graviton is either, even if they do exist).

So to me, if we want to speak of real *forces*, they are the fundamental ones. The others are just convenient placeholders to avoid the fine details that don't matter in classical problems. Like avoiding mucking about with space-time metrics to calculate basic Newtonian ballistic problems. Space-time is the *correct* explanation, Newton is a useful description.

And no, we don't need to "pick" between GR and QM, plenty of solutions maintain both.

Jan 14, 2014
and nowhere will you find a quotable source that says "there is always...." you may find verbage like "...appeared to have a constant relation..."


The exact language used last night, on two separate programs, as well as at least one article on this site quite some time ago, was that it is based on the mass of the entire galaxy, and yes, "Always" was used. They drew a ONE TO ONE LINE GRAPH with some MINOR deviations a few units to either side, and presented that graph repeatedly, and repeatedly used the expression (on two consecutive hour-long programs,) that it was half a percent of the entire galaxy's mass.

http://www.bright...601.aspx

Second Paragraph under section entitled "Connections".

quote


The mass of the black hole was always ½ of one percent of the total mass of the galaxy.


Their article, their language.

Wrong and utterly ridiculous piss-ant psuedoscience.

Jan 14, 2014
First paragraph under "If it Does".

Their own info, their own article, Quote:

The black hole at the Milky Way's core is about 3 million solar masses, so we have nothing to worry about.


3 million is a hell of a lot less than half of one percent of 200 to 400 Billion.

They contradict themselves, presented evidence which contradicts their own conclusion, and they did it at least four separate times in four separate media, and somehow did not catch this discrepancy.

3 million / 200 billion = 0.000015

Which is fifteen ten-thousandths of one percent.

Jan 14, 2014
Where are you Scottfos?

I have linked evidence that I was giving their exact words, which also proves you didn't know what you were talking about either.

What now?

Are you going to be like Brucep on Physforum, and do the whole "Expert didn't say what he said he said," thing?

Seriously, do some research. The deal is I knew I was right on both accounts, at least as far as whatever they said, and I was able to easily find yet another article making the exact same mistake in the exact same language.

Fact is, what was said on two internet articles and two different Science Channel programs was self-contradictory and dead wrong. Their own evidence disproves their claim, easily, irrefutably.

Jan 14, 2014
Now I was using an approximation based only on the mass of "ordinary matter" as being about the same as the number of stars in solar masses.

If you want to use the additional 600 to 800 billion solar masses worth of alleged "Dark Matter" that these bozos claim exist in the Milky Way, then the theory is wrong by an additional factor of 2.5 to 5, or one quarter to one half an order of magnitude, depending on who's numbers you use for the alleged amount of DM.

Either way it's wrong and ridiculous.

Jan 14, 2014
Since the measurements of our own galaxy are probably a lot more accurate and precise, at least for what is not obscured by dust, then I am inclined to conclude that either the theory is wrong, or the measurements of other galaxy's SMBH and/or total mass are wrong.

The reason I'd say that is they have photo evidence of the stars orbiting our own galactic center, at an obviously much higher resolution, by simply counting the time it took a star to get back to the same location.

The method used to "measure" the orbits of the stars in distant galaxies was based on the red or blue shift, but not of individual objects, but the displacement or shift within the galaxy itself, which given the description on the videos seemed dubious, unreliable at best anyway.

Consistency is not evidence of correctness, because they can be consistently wrong, much as their articles and videos consistently contradict themselves as shown above.

Jan 14, 2014
@Scott_L

I agree. Comments need to address the issues, not the personalities. These comments need to go the way of Popular Science, which discontinued their comment section altogether.

Jan 14, 2014
I have a nit to pick with spacetime, so I may as well.. We experience time as a sequence of events and so think of it as the point of the present moving from past to future, which is then reduced to measures of duration, but logically the reality is the changing configuration of what is, turns future into past. For example, the earth is not traveling/existing along some fourth dimension blocktime, from yesterday to tomorrow, but tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. This makes time an effect of action, like temperature, not part of some underlaying basis for it. Duration is the physical dynamic occurring between particular events, so it is the state of the present, not some dimension on which it exists. Measures of duration and distance are interconnected, but than so are measures of temperature and volume, but no one thinks there is a 'fabric of temperaturevolume'. That we exist as points of reference and so experience change as linear sequence seems the issue.

Jan 14, 2014
If time really were a vector from past to future, logically the faster clock would move into the future quicker, but the opposite is true, it ages/burns/processes quicker, so it recedes into the past faster. The tortoise is still plodding along, long after the hare has died.
Time is to temperature what frequency is to amplitude.

Jan 14, 2014
Now the orbital period of the stars around our galaxy's center is done based on a "visual" of the stars in x-ray band, and simply WATCHING their orbital periods. Which is to say it's an objective measure of time which is not in any way affected by the truth or falsehood of general relativity. We can trust this measurement because it works the same was as watching the Moon orbit the Earth, or watching Mercury orbit the Sun; it's a direct measure of the period or time.

The measure of the objects' spectral shift in distant galaxies is relying on General Relativity, a THEORY, and the formulas presented by that THEORY, which if wrong in any detail will make the results of the calculations wrong.

There is entirely too much faith placed in these equations for the purpose of "measuring" distant objects.

Using a "theory" as a measuring tool isn't even scientific. You are supposed to use an empirical measurement to establish theory, not the other way around.

Jan 14, 2014
Brodix:

If you want to see a conceptual problem with relativity, consider the possibility of a family travelling to a distant star system via a space ship. They fly close to the speed of light, like 88%, so that supposedly time slows down for them by a factor of about 1/2, but they also supposedly observe the distance cut in half as well, and so on.

What is the "real" time it takes them to reach the destination? One group thinks it was 20 years, the other thinks it was 40 years.

Those arriving at the new planet send back a message asking how much time has passed, knowing the distance was 20 light-years, and that a round-trip light speed message would be another 40 years all together. They receive a message back indicating that 40 years had passed.

How could this be, since the travelers would need to have seen Earth orbit the Sun 40 times whilst looking back, yet their internal clock, allegedly, according to Relativity, claims only 20 years passed for them. It's all flawed.

Jan 14, 2014
After all, if the Earth is observed, by the travellers, to orbit the Sun 40 times in 20 years, as would be needed, then from their perspective the laws of physics have changed, or the mass of the Sun has changed (but they'll see the Moon orbit twice as often too,) which means the Earth's mass has changed.

See, here is where Einstein made a great blunder, because none of his thought experiments involve a "Control" mechanism.

The Planetary Clock method solves this problem, by showing a paradox where independent events, planetary orbits, observable by both parties are irreconcilably "warped" by the supposed results of the theory.

It is illogical to conclude that the planets and Suns mass will have changed, yet if their orbital periods changed, then either the mass changed or the laws of physics changed, contrary to Einstein's own claim.

He claimed laws remain the same for all inertial references.

Practical application shows it actually would require changing the laws of physics.

Jan 14, 2014
If the travellers conclude that the Earth is orbiting the Sun twice as fast, then they are required to either vary the Earth's and Sun's mass (makes the absurd implication that the fuel onboard a mere rocket can alter the mass of the entire universe,) or they are required to vary the laws of physics.

If the Travellers conclude that their clock is wrong, and that 40 years have passed, they will be contradicting the supposed predictions of Relativity.

Either way, the theory is wrong.

The fact they stop on the other end doesn't change the fact Earth will have orbited 40 times.

The time-delay due to distance from the light source is a Newtonian concept, and is not the product of the alleged time warping caused by relativity,.

Jan 14, 2014
@Returners, what do you propose as an empirical astronomical measuring stick?

We've achieved what we have, by using parallax, standard candles, then variable stars. From these we then moved onto red shift. Each theory is consistent with the previous. What else can we go by?

As for someone who mentioned velocity of a particle as heat, there are several ways to incorporate K.E. There are several different types of motion, each contributes to heat. Molecules tend to vibrate back and forth, which is heat. But collisions (linear) also contribute to heat.

As for forces, let's remember that gravity interacts with objects that have MOMENTUM!!! Momentum can be stated in different forms according to what you are measuring. Light for instance uses wavelength (via DeBroglie) to determine momentum, hence gravity affects light!! All forces involve a CHANGE in momentum. Since velocity is a vector, circular motion with constant speed gives rise to a force.

Jan 14, 2014
@Returners: You do realize, of course, that your multitudes of sequential inanities are merely a reason for readers to reflexively scroll down, right? No one ever reads a single word you write. Consider the significance of that for a moment or two. What you do is called pissing in the wind.

Jan 14, 2014
@Returners: You do realize, of course, that your multitudes of sequential inanities are merely a reason for readers to reflexively scroll down, right? No one ever reads a single word you write. Consider the significance of that for a moment or two. What you do is called pissing in the wind.


Oh some do, some do.

Regardless, you must admit that I am most certainly right regarding the SMBH and Sigma problem.

If people don't care, I don't know what to say about it, other than I am confident it will be proven wrong more absolutely, eventually, though I think they won't even admit the mistake they made in their own data.

It doesn't concern me whether people read my posts or not.

They are going to be fools either way if they continue believing everything "established science" claims to have found, without checking for the obvious discrepancies such as that one, and no, I am obviously not the one who made a mistake, as I hope some few who read this shall see.

Jan 14, 2014
If you want to see a conceptual problem with relativity, consider the possibility of a family travelling to a distant star system via a space ship. They fly close to the speed of light, like 88%, so that supposedly time slows down for them by a factor of about 1/2, but they also supposedly observe the distance cut in half as well, and so on.

What is the "real" time it takes them to reach the destination? One group thinks it was 20 years, the other thinks it was 40 years.

If you want to see a CALCULATION problem consider the included quote...

Jan 14, 2014
Big hairy Jimbo:

Parallax can be proven reliable based on physical experiments on and near Earth. We use triangulation in other sciences and it works, and is verifiable through other physical means with hands and boots on the ground.

General Relativity and special cannot be, even though it has been accepted on the basis of a few coincidences.

For example, according to Relativity, the gravitational time dilation of an orbiting object about a Black Hole produces the same result as if the object were moving in a straight line in flat space-time at the same speed it orbits, even though it should be warped by both effects, based on different aspects of relativity.

This is a contradiction. Yet nobody admits this discrepancy. I've seen Stephen Hawking present this example many times, and he never mentions the discrepancy either. It appears the black hole actually has no effect on time whatever, since traveling in a straight line at the same speed as orbital speed produces the same result.

Jan 14, 2014
If you want to see a CALCULATION problem consider the included quote...


Delta T' * gamma = Delta T

Um....that's exactly right, except I approximated the speed corresponding to a time dilation factor of 0.5...

It's correct by design.

Okay, technically I guess it's 0.87 would be the correct rounding, but this is the number, if you want to be an ass about it.

0.86602540378443864676372317075294

Jan 14, 2014
Now, to do away with the confusion of the "Rocket" and use stars instead.

Suppose we observe what appears to be a "Rogue" star, and orbiting that star is a habitable planet with an alien race of astronomers on it.

They consider themselves to be in the "S" frame, and us to be in the "S'" (S Prime) frame.

Our scientists consider us to be in the "S" frame and the alien to be in the "S Prime" frame.

Teh problem is this doesn't work, because only one frame can be the S frame and the other must be S prime. otherwise each observer's calculations would have themselves as the "older" alien and the other as the "younger".

However, then you still contradict Einstein's claims, because he claimed there was no preferred inertial frame. Clearly, the formula only works one way, contradicting that notion.

By removing the rocket I made things fully arbitrary. We could go a step further and replace the star with another galaxy, removing questions of galactic orbits.

Jan 14, 2014
But in the case of these inter-galactic astronomers, who is the "S" observer adn who is the real "S prime" observer?

They can't both find themself to be older than the other, as that is an obvious contradiction.

But if only one can rightly consider himself to be the "S" observer, then Einstein's claim of "no preferred frame," is proven wrong, which then undermines the entire thing.

Only difference is I replaced the rocket with another star (or galaxy). Since you can't tell which galaxy is "preferred," but one of them must be to avoid the "who aged more" contradiction, then the theory is actually useless. It cannot properly predict the observation made by your counterpart in this situation, because you don't know whether you are the "S" or the "S prime" observer.

It's not supposed to matter, but mathematically it actually does matter.

Option 1: I'm 1 year older and he's a half year older.

Option 2: I'm 1 year older and he's 2 years older.

They are not reversible.

Jan 14, 2014
Einstein can be proven wrong because his math is wrong fundamentally.

http://www.youtub...HHXaPrWA

Einstein is the godfather of astronomical speculation. It's appropriate, considering his first paper had ZERO references.


Jan 14, 2014
It's correct by design.
Okay, technically I guess it's 0.87 would be the correct rounding, but this is the number, if you want to be an ass about it.
0.86602540378443864676372317075294

I prefer rounded numbers. The ass is always someone who tries to out detail you...
It took 20 years for travel, they only EXPERIENCED 10. Add the 20 years for the trip and the 20 years for the message, it took 40 years for us. 30 for the travelers EXPERIENCE, not the actual trip. Oh, and you forgot 20 years for the return message. Making it 60 years for us and 50 for them... If they could, upon their arrival, look back at the number of orbits of the earth/sun since they left, they would still only see 20. (Well, maybe 21 or 22, if you want to be an arse about it....)
Once they stop, they are at the same referential frame as the rest of us, time-wise.
Your "math" is relevant only if they travelled FASTER than the speed of light and it hadn't caught up to them, yet.

Jan 14, 2014
QuantumConundrum,
The black hole/galaxy mass ratio only holds for bulge-dominated galaxies, which the Milky Way is not. http://www.nature..._F3.html
But thanks for wasting our time and yours.

Jan 14, 2014
But in the case of these inter-galactic astronomers, who is the "S" observer adn who is the real "S prime" observer?

You are not including the time it takes the light to get to us (or them). Different levels of "locality" - ours, theirs and the universes.

But if only one can rightly consider himself to be the "S" observer, then Einstein's claim of "no preferred frame," is proven wrong, which then undermines the entire thing.

In your scenario, the actual preferred reference frame is the Universes. Einstein simply meant no preferred reference frame contained within that larger one (beyond which we can't tell what is anyway). They BOTH are S and S-prime... you both are looking at the light from each (which travels at it's speed, of course).
It's not supposed to matter, but mathematically it actually does matter.

Only if you're doing the math wrong...

.[

Jan 14, 2014
Returners,
I tend to stay away from the geometry because it is quite brilliant and effective. My issue is the explanatory interpretation of these patterns. Spacetime effectively assigns agency to the patterns. This is essentially the same conceptual fallacy epicycles made. With epicycles, the actual calculations based on observations were extremely accurate. The error was assigning direct agency to these patterns, with giant cosmic gearwheels powering this clockwork universe. GR does a wonderful job of correlating measures of distance and duration, using the speed of light as medium, but then it assigns this four dimensional 'fabric' as the agent of the patterns, rather than looking for deeper causes. With distance, area and volume, you are measuring aspects of space, but with time and temperature, you are measuring aspects of action. What we have is action in space. Time is a measure of change and temperature is the degree of activity.

Jan 14, 2014
IOW, Returners,
If they are 20 LY's away. we observe them as they were 20 years ago and vice-versa. Wanna see what they are doing right now? Gotta wait 20 years.....

Jan 14, 2014
Not only do we promote time as more than it is, but we tend to demote temperature to mere staticitical average, but given all these combined motions are interacting, they are seeking an equilibrium state(entropy), so the temperature is actually a natural equilibrium and is as basic as the effect of time. Our minds function through sequences, but our bodies depend on metabolic thermal equilibrium. The base state of energy, quantum fluctuation, background radiation, etc, are thermal states with little change to create the passage of time.
The three dimensions of space are essentially the coordinate system we, as single points of reference, use to define the space we live in. They are no more physical attributes of space than longitude, latitude and altitude are physical attributes of the surface of this planet. If you look out into space, the primary form is the sphere and the primary dynamic is arguably convection, since mass contracts and energy expands.

Jan 14, 2014
I suspect gravity is not so much an attribute of mass, as it is a vacuum effect of energy coalescing into mass, much as mass turning to energy creates pressure, given that equivalent amounts of mass occupy less space than the equal amount of energy. We can't find that dark matter, but there are large amounts of cosmic rays, interstellar gases, first generation stars, etc, out there where it should be. If there is a dynamic relation across this spectrum of energy and nascent mass, it would have both the connectivity to hold the outer edges of galaxies together and warp light passing through.

Jan 14, 2014
QuantumConundrum,
The black hole/galaxy mass ratio only holds for bulge-dominated galaxies, which the Milky Way is not. http://www.nature..._F3.html
But thanks for wasting our time and yours.

i all but gave the guy the answer. these comments are amazing.

Jan 15, 2014
As a lot of mathematicians know, relativity was proven to be internally inconsistent (and therefore disproved) over 60 years ago.

Einstein, Hawking and other physicists who've read the paper couldn't find a flaw, but dismissed it because relativity is too "beautiful" to be wrong ( i think also because they built their careers on it).

To simplify the scenario physicists find themselves in, it would be like a mathematician proving that, through a series of simple arithmetical operations you could start out with two separate items but combining them in a special way you could get three items (essentially showing: 1+1=3).

So seeing this physicists get busy trying to implement the special operations while the mathematician know's it is actually a fatal flaw in the underlying theory of arithmetic.


Jan 15, 2014
Einstein was not God, but like all of us a human being: And as we all know human beings make mistakes. The guideline for a true physicist MUST be that what we believe is correct today can tomorrow be found not to be totally correct: Just like the caloric theory explained above.

If you do not accept that all physicists, INCLUDING EINSTEIN, might be proved to have been wrong, you are not a physicist. No physicist, who is a REAL SCIENTIST, will ever write anything with the title:"Why Einstein will never be wrong".

The fact is that there are two peer-reviewed articles in the pipeline, which required a 50 year fight to get accepted by the reviewers, since they also doggedly believed that "Einstein will never be wrong": However, they had to finally admit that Einstein was wrong when he derived

1. length contraction (see Phys. Essays December 2013)
2. that a "moving clock" keeps time at a slower rate than a clock relative to which it is moving (Phys. Essays. March 2014).

Jan 15, 2014
As a lot of mathematicians know, relativity was proven to be internally inconsistent (and therefore disproved) over 60 years ago.

Einstein, Hawking and other physicists who've read the paper couldn't find a flaw, but dismissed it because relativity is too "beautiful" to be wrong ( i think also because they built their careers on it).

@sculpwnwiss
References please?

@Uba
what REALLY surprises me is the LACK of noise from Ubavontuba!
Hey, UBA! why dont you post HERE that theory you showed me where you showed Einstein to be wrong? that theory you gave me via PM's?

i am SURE that others would LOVE to see it!

and i still haven't forgot you... i WILL get back to you on it.

Jan 15, 2014
However, there is an observation that gives rise to a question;
Why do all of the exoplanets discovered (The ones I've read about, anyway) have such high orbital speeds around their respective stars? Not done calculations, but - seems like some of them should be at an escape velocity....
Perhaps someone could show me what I'm missing here...

Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 15, 2014
Why do all of the exoplanets discovered (The ones I've read about, anyway) have such high orbital speeds around their respective stars?

Because they are easier to detect. (The have more transients and/or create a more noticeable wobble of the parent star). Read: we are getting a skewed set of data from our observations. The set of exoplanets we know about isn't a good, average representation of all planets.

It's the same reason why we have found more Jupiter class planets than Mercury class planets until now. The latter are just harder to detect and our instruments are already working at the very limits of sensitivity.

Jan 15, 2014
Einstein was deeply wrong thinking space-time is a fundamental arena of the universe.
We show recently time is merely a duration of change running in space
and definitely not 4th dimension of space:

Special theory of relativity postulated on homogeneity of
space and time and on relativity principle
Luigi Maxmilian Caligiuri1, 2, *, Amrit Sorli1
1Foundation of Physics Research Center, FoPRC, via Resistenza 10 87053 Celico (CS), Italy
2University of Calabria, via P. Bucci 87036 Arcavacata di Rende (CS), Italy
Email address:
caligiuri@foprc.org (L. M. Caligiuri), sorli@foprc.org (A. Sorli)
To cite this article:
Luigi Maxmilian Caligiuri, Amrit Sorli. Special Theory of Relativity Postulated on Homogeneity of Space and Time and on Relativity
Principle. American Journal of Modern Physics. Vol. 2, No. 6, 2013, pp. 375-382. doi: 10.11648/j.ajmp.20130206.25

Jan 15, 2014
No physicist, who is a REAL SCIENTIST, will ever write anything with the title:"Why Einstein will never be wrong".


I think you need to read this in context of a reviewer receiving the millionth Einstein-defying crackpot. I'm quite sure the person in question is well aware that Einstein could be proven incorrect or inaccurate in the long run.

Newton's laws are quite inaccurate too, yet still used and very useful for that matter.

Jan 15, 2014
Ain't no gravity, it's all expansion. See "The Situation of Gravity - Third Edition".


You're taking a piss at us, right?

Jan 15, 2014
Einstein was deeply wrong thinking space-time is a fundamental arena of the universe.
We show recently time is merely a duration of change running in space
and definitely not 4th dimension of space:


really...seriously, what's up with you guys... Apart from you being wrong or right, you fail to see the irony of posting it in this specific article?

But have a go, you should be able to explain how time dilates accordingly with the distorted space around mass, right?

Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 15, 2014
This may sound strange for most of you, but the stability of common massive objects mostly depends on presence of various repulsive forces between particles, which the general relativity doesn't consider at all. When we postulate so-called geon model, in which all objects are composed of gravitational waves only (Wheeler 1954), then we realize fast, that such objects are inherently unstable.

I believe you are forgetting about the strong force when thinking about an object like this.

Jan 15, 2014
The relativity is based on assumption, inside of gravitational lens it's the space-time, what is curved - not the path of light. Apparently this assumption works well, when you get INSIDE of gravity lens, but it must be applied to space-time only there


This reminds me of something Einstein said: "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

Theories are just that, problems that use equations to help solve them. By Einstein's own thinking, we can't solve the problems that arise from GR by using GR.

Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 15, 2014
@shavera,

"Space-time is the *correct* explanation, Newton is a useful description."

I wouldn't use the term "explanation" but "model". You are very brave to allude to "explanations" when space-time is not ontology but epistemology. Space-time is an axiom with no proof.

"And no, we don't need to "pick" between GR and QM, plenty of solutions maintain both."

And these are? Entanglement and action-at-distance is a fact beyond doubt in QM. GR denies this fact and supporters of 4-dimensionalism use red herrings that involve arguments about the (no) transfer of information. A choice between QM and GR is inevitable unless you can tell us how space-time emerges from QM, which needs an independent and absolute background, similar to Newton's.

Jan 15, 2014
Why Einstein will never be wrong


Because he and his disciples share a commonality;
"Einstein was quite simply contemptuous of experiment, preferring to put his faith in pure thought." Paul Davies

These "thought experimentors" have seemingly forgotten what science really is about;
"We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture." Hannes Alfvén

And voila, we have "space-time", black holes, DM, DE, and any number of other "imaginary conjectures".


Jan 15, 2014
BTW, I'd like to welcome Nestle/Osteta back. It's been awhile Zeph, you have been missed....

Jan 15, 2014
Entanglement and action-at-distance is a fact beyond doubt in QM. GR denies this fact and supporters of 4-dimensionalism use red herrings that involve arguments about the (no) transfer of information.


Just because they're not the answer you like doesn't mean they're "red herrings." All Bell's theorem tells us is that space is either non-local or it can have hidden variables, but not both. I'd sooner discard hidden variables than locality, because as we can show, instantaneous transmission of information is the transmission of information backwards in time in a different reference frame. Backwards in time signalling can lead to unresolvable paradoxes (see the twin-tachyon gun/ tachyon duel problem).

Jan 15, 2014
and there still remains significant hope that we'll resolve the ultraviolet problem of just quantizing the curvature field. That would resolve GR and QM in a way that allows for both to continue to exist. We were lucky with EM fields that renormalizability helped access solutions, but we've been less so with the strong force, and again with curvature fields. But again, there are distinct possibilities that the curvature field of GR is perfectly quantize-able and then compatible with the other quantum fields.

Jan 15, 2014
Love it. Koberiein rightly points out how tentative and empirical science is – something many absolutists seem to ignore. "This rule seems to work good for cases where we were watching really close, so let's leave it at that for now and go on the next problem."

Jan 15, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 15, 2014
It was once told as a good joke upon a mathematician that the poor man went mad and mistook his symbols for realities; as M for the moon and S for the sun.
-Oliver Heaviside

Jan 15, 2014
Osteta writes
as the wormhole violates the relativity for example by allowing the superluminal travel

@Osteta
from what I read about wormholes, it was not superluminal travel. It was normal travel "within" the worm-hole, and the worm hole was just a short-cut through space

viewed externally it APPEARS to be superluminal, however, it is not. travel "within" the wormhole is normal

For a simplified notion of a wormhole, visualize spacetime as a two-dimensional (2D) surface. If folded along a third dimension, the surface is analogous to a wormhole "bridge". The mouths of a wormhole are analogous to holes in a 2D plane; a real wormhole's mouths could be spheres in 3D space

https://en.wikipe...Wormhole

Jan 15, 2014
The whole point of Relativity is that velocity of material change is relative ragarding energy density of quantum vacuum.
http://www.ingent...82f475fa
There is no such a thing as a "time dilatation" and "lenght contraction".

Jan 15, 2014
GR denies this fact and supporters of 4-dimensionalism
Recently http://www.scient...ent-link for reconcilliation of quantum entanglement with general relativity with using of wormhole concept has been made. I'm a bit suspicious about logical consistency of such an approach, as the wormhole violates the relativity for example by allowing the superluminal travel (it would require higher number of dimensions than just four). But if the physicists are happy with it, it's their problem - not mine.

WB, Osteta. Just made a positive comment bout you in one of these dang threads.

Jan 15, 2014
I have NEVER in my life encountered a higher density of BS than I have read on this thread! God helps the human race!

Maybe HE has given up, and is just laughing at the mess that HE has created. Even HE has made mistakes! So why should Einstein be better? Is this what is meant in the Bible when it is stated that we have been created in HIS image?

Jan 15, 2014
@Scott_L

I agree. Comments need to address the issues, not the personalities. These comments need to go the way of Popular Science, which discontinued their comment section altogether.


The solution is so simple. If you don't like the comments... Then don't fucking read them. Asshole!

Jan 15, 2014
Just a short question, could somebody please help me to remember who is the one who experimentally /!/ validated The Big Bang? :)

Jan 15, 2014
what I read about wormholes, it was not superluminal travel. It was normal travel "within" the worm-hole, and the worm hole was just a short-cut through space
The shortcut is called a shortcut, just because it enables you to travel faster. For example, the entanglement is routinely observed between photons, which are already moving with speed of light - so that any sort of wormhole between photons should be maintained with some faster mechanism. But as I said, the wormhole interpretation is strange and we already have experiments, which could falsify it. I'm just using it as a counterargument for claim, that "general relativists deny the superluminal entanglement".

Jan 15, 2014
gravity is a field. is gravity not confined by the speed of light? we cannot directly observe gravitons as we do not have the technology yet to find them.

Jan 15, 2014
we cannot directly observe gravitons as we do not have the technology yet to find them
Sometimes better brain is enough. The gravitons should be quanta of mass mediating the matter and curvature of spacetime - and the photons may play this role as well. During supernovae explosions the substantial portion of stellar matter is radiated in form of photons. In linearized, Einstein–Maxwell theory on flat spacetime, an oscillating electric dipole is the source of a spin-2 field, so that the gravitational component may exist inside of every photon and it would be quantized in the same way, like the photon itself.
It's true, that the GR predicts zero mass for light, only momentum - but the photons aren't artifact of GR, but quantum mechanics. The GR has nothing to say about photons: it just considers the light as background independent spherical transverse wave. So I do consider the photons as a GR violation.

Jan 15, 2014
If the light would be massless, it would propagate at distance like the ripple rings at the surface of water. Such a wave cannot transfer mass, only momentum, as the GR implies. But if such wave will get fragmented into myriads of tiny solitons, the additional space-time curvature formed with it may have its mass assigned. So that the photons can transfer the mass, not just momentum and this mass would be quantized into photons.

The common objection against zero mass of photons is, the photon are bosons of electromagnetic interaction and if they would be massive, they couldn't mediate the EM interaction at infinite distance. But the trick there can be, the photons aren't required to be infinitely stable during this. They can dissolve and reemerge somewhere else during their flight in a process, which is known as a quantum decoherence or quantum oscillation (which is already known for neutrinos and another bosons, like the mesons).

Jan 15, 2014
Please note, that even the wormhole model of quantum entanglement requires/considers some mass for photons too (at least on background) - as the wormhole cannot be formed between solely massless objects.

Jan 15, 2014
Please note, that even the wormhole model of quantum entanglement requires/considers some mass for photons too (at least on background) - as the wormhole cannot be formed between solely massless objects.

He's been studying - and he's back...

Jan 16, 2014
Gravity is a term for a force that we can't explain, but we excellent models for. We know the how but not the why. Where I think both theories fail is in accounting for the molecular composition of the objects displaying gravitational forces. The atom is the basic structure that creates interaction within our universe, so the force begins there in my opinion.


See that's where you're wrong. Gravity isn't a force, at least not an emergent force. Gravity is curved space time.

Jan 16, 2014
The universe is mirror-symmetric to photons (viewed and assumed) but parity-violating for matter (curve-fit). Opposite shoes violate the EP. Crystallography's opposite shoes are visually and chemically identical, single crystal test masses in enantiomorphic space groups, physics obscure but chemistry obvious.

Load an Eötvös torsion balance with one vertical plane of right-handed quartz, the opposite with left-handed quartz. 0.113 nm^3/alpha-quartz unit cell. 40 grams net as 8 single crystal test masses compare 6.68×10^22 pairs of enantiomorphic unit cells, test mass array cube opposed vertical sides. The Equivalence Principle falls to ECSK spacetime torsion.


Jan 16, 2014
Parity violation in particle physics is unrelated to chirality of molecules. big ol' [citation needed] on that one, UncleAl

Jan 16, 2014
See that's where you're wrong. Gravity isn't a force, at least not an emergent force. Gravity is curved space time.

So, then... what's causing the curve in spacetime?

Jan 16, 2014
So, then... what's causing the curve in spacetime?


That's an answer we don't have yet. All we know right now is that in the presence of energy, measures of length and time vary with location near that energy (or more accurately, the stress energy tensor field is proportional to the curvature tensor field).

Maybe, if we find a way to treat the curvature tensor field within the quantum field theory framework (ie, quantize the field) we may have an answer whereby every massive particle perturbs the curvature in some fundamental way.

But we could just as well ask "why do particle fields, like electrons, couple to the EM field?" All we know is... they do. So presumably, the stress-energy-tensor field, which is a classical ensemble of all those quantum particle fields, couples to the curvature field... because that's the universe we find ourselves in.

Jan 16, 2014
The shortcut is called a shortcut, ... the superluminal entanglement".


@Nestle
The impossibility of faster-than-light relative speed only applies locally. Wormholes allow superluminal (faster-than-light) travel by ensuring that the speed of light is not exceeded locally at any time. While traveling through a wormhole, subluminal (slower-than-light) speeds are used. If two points are connected by a wormhole, the time taken to traverse it would be less than the time it would take a light beam to make the journey if it took a path through the space outside the wormhole. However, a light beam traveling through the wormhole would always beat the traveler. As an analogy, sprinting around to the opposite side of a mountain at maximum speed may take longer than walking through a tunnel crossing it.
https://en.wikipe...Wormhole

please RE-READ that last sentence in the paragraph.

Jan 16, 2014
Good luck explaining physics to the Zephyr Stumpy, he has his own way of seeing things that no amount of reality will shake.

Jan 16, 2014
@shavera

So what is a force? Evidently, GR does away with forces. However, everything else seems to be described by a force (strong, weak and electromagnetic). So is this the mismatch between gravity and field theory.? Gravity does away with the concept of force while the rest of the world has forces but the wrong geometry?

A 'force' is an artifact of the coordinate system in use. The Standard Model and QM use the *approximation* of point particles, which enforces the use of a Cartesian coordinate system. Actual physical entities possess properties such as electromagnetic fields which alone require four orthogonal dimensions to be adequately represented. Four-tensors, Minkowski space, and the D'Alembertian operator become essential to describe free 'particles' and collections thereof. Mathematically transforming from a general Minkowski space to a more 'intuitive' four-space such as space-time leads to the creation of fictitious forces.

Jan 16, 2014
This is another interesting way of looking at it.
Think of a simple tape measure, as compared to a dial caliper. The tape measure is correct and accurate. You can use it to gleam a lot of information. It is not incorrect. Yet the dial caliper will give you far more precision. You can more easily use it to measure interior dimensions, or that of something which is round, or small. But would you use a dial caliper to build your house? Would be almost impossible. You lose your accuracy for the sake of ease to use a tape measure. You only crack out the caliper when you need the extra precision. Neither is incorrect, one is simply more accurate.

Jan 16, 2014
The impossibility of faster-than-light relative speed only applies locally
I see... What would that mean - "locally"? Just 1 nm, 1 meter or 1 kPc?
he has his own way of seeing things that no amount of reality will shake
I'm indeed opened to logical arguments. Do you have some? BTW What the Wikipedia says about mass of photons:
The photon is currently understood to be strictly massless, but this is an experimental question. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light in vacuum, c. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the maximum speed that any object could theoretically attain in space-time. Thus, it would still be the speed of space-time ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons.

Jan 16, 2014
Mmm.. I think most of the people here have kind of missed the point of the post....

Einstein won't be 'proven' wrong because that's not how science works. General Relativity works because it's inclusive of all that we knew before (ie: Newton), while extending it to new predictions which have been shown to be correct.

The only way Einstein can be proven wrong is for everyone who's done any testing to have simply been wrong for the last almost 100 years, or a truly massive conspiracy to make Einstein seem right has been happening, because for him to be wrong, the universe would have to work *differently* than he's described it.

The main point is that we won't prove Einstein wrong - but we'll show that his model is *incomplete* and extend it out to a new, larger model which encompasses his model, much like his model encompassed Newton.

In the same way, Newton wasn't proven wrong when Einstein came along. Just incomplete.

Jan 16, 2014
Correct.

Science doesn't work on the absolutist 'right-wrong' paradigm. There's stuff that is useful and stuff that is more useful. As long as something correlates with reality to a point where you can use it to make useful predictions it's good theory (even if it always gives you the OPPOSITE of what happens in reality. You can use a compass that points 180 degrees in the wrong direction to get where you want to go without fail).
Only theories that make predictions no better than just randomly picking an outcome are truly useless (e.g. basing your life on a "religious theory of prayer" or somesuch).

Newtonian gravity is useful. Einsteinian warped space is more useful. And there will certainly be a time when we will find something even more useful. That doesn't diminish the use of Newtonian results one bit (or make it 'more wrong'). It only puts it on a lower step RELATIVELY to the others.

Jan 16, 2014
Ain't no gravity, it's all expansion. See "The Situation of Gravity - Third Edition".


You're taking a piss at us, right?

No, I'm not. There is absolutely no proof that gravity exists, there are no gravitons, gravitinos, gravity waves, etc. etc. Dark matter only "exists" because it is the only way to explain some effects of "gravity", i.e there ain't no dark matter either, and so on.
I prefer a completely different philosophy as to how the universe works, what time is, what momentum is, and so on. All you need is an open mind to think about it, and realise that all the stuff from Newton onwards when he "invented" gravity rather than recognise it for what it actually is, is based on "facts" that can be used to support expansion theory just as well as Newton/Einstein.
I stand by for the usual barrage of crap from the gravity fanatics, all gratefully received.

Jan 16, 2014
I prefer a completely different philosophy as to how the universe works, what time is, what momentum is, and so on. All you need is an open mind to think about it, and realise that all the stuff from Newton onwards when he "invented" gravity rather than recognise it for what it actually is, is based on "facts" that can be used to support expansion theory just as well as Newton/Einstein.
I stand by for the usual barrage of crap from the gravity fanatics, all gratefully received.

I would be interested in seeing this theory. No crap.

Jan 16, 2014
You should learn the principle of emergence: more is different. I'm usually explaining it with this scheme of gravitational lensing. In this model the photons travel through field of quantum fluctuations of vacuum around massive body. Each tiny fluctuation behaves like tiny gravitational lens and the photons curve their path in such a way, their speed of light would remain invariant. But when we consider the gradient of concentration of such fluctuations around massive body, then the net result of such collective motion is exactly the opposite and each photon travels trough space with different speed. Therefore the Lorentz invariance at the microscopical/local level may lead into violation of this invariance at the macroscopic/nonlocal level (and vice-versa).
In another thread someone tried to explain, how the local GR may lead into worm holes, which do violate the GR globally - this is the same stuff.

Jan 16, 2014
Another example: although the epicycle geometry has been proven demonstratively wrong at the case of rather small solar system, inside of large system of massive bodies this geometry may lead into new insights about formation of galactic arms and violations of Kepler's law. It's just matter of quantity, whether the local quality will be preserved at the nonlocal scope.

I already explained above, that the behavior of gravitational lens depends on whether we are using intrinsic or extrinsic perspective for their description. The extrinsic perspective is always connected with small violation of general relativity. At the case of quantum theory, which deals with myriads of tiny gravitational lenses these violations cumulate and as the result the behavior of quantum systems is quite different from relativity.

Therefore "more is different", because we are switching perspective unwillingly during observation of multiple objects.

210
Jan 16, 2014
"WHY EINSTEIN WILL NEVER BE WRONG" -cause, we love him!

word-

Jan 16, 2014
Parity violation in particle physics is unrelated to chirality of molecules. big ol' [citation needed] on that one, UncleAl


Chern-Simons repair of Einstein-Hilbert action[1]. GR superset Einstein-Cartan-Kibble-Sciama gravitation contains chiral spacetime torsion. Spacetime curvature is a racemic subset[2]. Theory curve-fit Gran Sasso superluminal neutrinos. The outcome of a good experiment is unknown beforehand. When Cox said it, he was crushed[3]. When Yang and Lee said it, they were Nobel Laureates[4].

[1] arXiv:1005.3310, 0907.2562, 0903.4573, 0811.0181, 0808.0506
[2]arXiv:1304.0047; Ashtekar chiral spacetime torsion is simpler than achiral curvature, arXiv:1112.1262, Section 5.5
[3] PNAS 14(7) 544 (1928)
[4] Phys. Rev. 104(1) 254 (1956), Phys. Rev. 105(4) 1413 (1957), Phys. Rev. 105(4) 1415 (1957)

Jan 16, 2014
you know the gran sasso superluminal neutrino thing was overturned a while back, right?

Jan 16, 2014
The theory of relativity is no less a theory for being a Good theory. Evidence that is "experimental" is by nature a variable dependent on conditions and the descriptive expression of conditions may fall outside of the conditions addressed by a tradition. The point made that challenges Einstein's theory is suspect for being a challenge to dogma. It really does no service to the spirit of research that pushes against the known in favor of discovery and innovation. Newton's laws are used when it is convenient. Novel approaches to an old problem should be welcomed by those with experience to recognize the fair boundary of anachronism and new approaches to old problems.

Jan 16, 2014
And all the articles you've posted don't have anything to do with relating chirality of fundamental particles with handedness of crystal formation.

Jan 16, 2014
Theory curve-fit Gran Sasso superluminal neutrinos
Even if it would be confirmed, I don't see any logical connection of alleged superluminal speed of neutrinos to space-time chirality or handedness of crystals. Could you explain it in more details - or to provide link?

Jan 16, 2014
you know the gran sasso superluminal neutrino thing was overturned a while back, right?

For some reason, I don't think he meant it actually was... Think he meant that a theory is only as good as the theorist. More or less..

Jan 16, 2014
I honestly don't know what they mean. They seemed to just grab papers that had the words "General Relativity" and "parity" or "chirality" in them... I'm really confused by the claims here.

Jan 16, 2014
I honestly don't know what they mean. They seemed to just grab papers that had the words "General Relativity" and "parity" or "chirality" in them... I'm really confused by the claims here.

I can see what he's going for and even how he's come to these conclusions, but I'm not sure how open you are to the simpleness of the reasoning...

Jan 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 17, 2014
I stand by for the usual barrage of crap from the gravity fanatics,

Just one: Show your work and where it makes (quantitative!) better predictions than the notion of gravity. And also where it is (quantitatively!) exactly the same as all the predictions/observations that a theory of gravity does.

'Having a philosophy' is fine. But don't expect anyone to give that any weight until/unless that philosophy has some correlation with reality on a - again - quantitative (!) level.

Otherwise it's no better than the theory of "souls/gods/unicorns exist".

Jan 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 17, 2014
I would be interested in seeing this theory. No crap.

It's expansion theory, as mentioned. There are several books on the subject, and numerous refutations all of which contain spurious logic. You will simply have to read some of them, think about it, and make up your own mind. The alternative is to accept gravity (undetectable/unstoppable as a force, gravitons, gravitinos, waves, etc.etc.) and its consequences (Dark Matter, Dark Energy, the Big Bang, the reason for Black Holes, etc.), all of them defying "proof" and "detection (except "effects")" by the might of the scientific establishment - do you know how much they spend on "trying" to detect gravity waves? Keeps hundreds of acolytes on the grav"it"y train year after year!
Meanwhile, in practice the Newton/Einstein equations work well enough for most purposes and there is nothing wrong with trying to improve their "accuracy" with new equations, but they in NO WAY attempt to explain WHAT GRAVITY ACTUALLY IS. It just exists!

Jan 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 17, 2014
Anti-Alias Physorg
Otherwise it's no better than the theory of "souls/gods/unicorns exist".

You missquoted the end of the sentence, which presumably should have read:-
"Otherwise it's no better than the theory of "souls/gods/unicorns/gravity waves exist".
Nobody said it was "better", just an alternative explanation as to how the universe works. At least it does not require the continuous invention of new forces/types of matter/umpteen dimensions/etc. You got anything "better"?

Jan 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 17, 2014
Or you can accept the model, despite it doesn't enable to calculate anything, but it enables to explain multiple effects at the same moment.

Which makes it worthless. It's like a religion then. Religion also enables you to 'explain' everything ("god did it"), but it's a useless theory because you can't use it for anything. It's just something to make you feel good. Arguably of psychological value to those who need such comforting mechanisms but not of scientific value.

Currently the physics is based on formal regressions, which are adding new parameters, when some unexpected situation happens.

No. Because 'just adding a parameter' will lead to things that did work with the old theory now not to work. When you augment a theory you have to make sure you don't invalidate that part which works.

The number of formal theories and postulates increases in this way,

No. Theories need to be integarted with each other.

Jan 17, 2014
You missquoted the end of the sentence, which presumably should have read:-
"Otherwise it's no better than the theory of "souls/gods/unicorns/gravity waves exist".

No. Gravity waves are predicted and testable. If they don't show up as predicted then this tells us something. Souls/gods/unicorns aren't testable (like your 'theory'), so you can always redefine it to suit whatever is observed. That may be satsfying to some but it's not useful. It's not 'better' because it's not good for anything.

Jan 17, 2014
AA I don't know how you do it. Expansion theory. Christ.

Word(s) to Reg: explain orbits.

Jan 17, 2014
@nestle
I see... What would that mean – "locally"?

ok, chocolate thought
are you being intentionally obtuse about this issue?
Local: if you can easily directly measure the speed of the craft before/after the wormhole. Non-local: far enough away to see both points (beginning and endpoint of wormhole).
I'm indeed opened to logical arguments. Do you have some?

I was thinking that you were trying to clarify, but I know enough to see that this is an attempt to obfuscate the issues and bring your pet theory into it.
BTW What the Wikipedia says...

nice subject change. If you cant understand subject "a" why should we continue?
You are NOT looking for logical discourse, you are attempting to realign reality to your skewed thought process.

I will leave you to your fight.
Best of luck to you

Jan 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 17, 2014
Einsteinian warped space is more useful


Useful for what? Fanciful notions and metamagics?

There was never a device made by man that used relativity (by necessity) to perform it's function.

There no known solutions to Einstein's field equations for 2 or more masses.


Jan 17, 2014
Einsteinian warped space is more useful


There was never a device made by man that used relativity (by necessity) to perform it's function.



GPS (O.k. it's not technically "necessary" but it is useful).

Jan 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 17, 2014
you know the gran sasso superluminal neutrino thing was overturned a while back, right?


Theory can gush nonsense if it is self-consistent. A loose fiberoptic timing connection ended "superluminal" neutrinos. Physics arises from vacuum symmetries (Noether's theorems) observed by massless boson photons. Matter is massed fermion quarks (ignore leptons). One doubts boson vacuum symmetries are exact for fermions.

General relativity/achiral spacetime curvature empirical failure occurs in ECKS gravitation with chiral spacetime torsion. Opposite shoes violate the Equivalence Principle. GR can empirically fail without contradicting any prior observation in any venue at any scale when observed outside its postulates. GR is perfect within its postulates, as Euclid is - then cartography, Bolyai, Thurston.

Jan 17, 2014
GPS (O.k. it's not technically "necessary" but it is useful).

Yeah, you could do GPS without relativity, but then you'd be off by more than 30 meters.

Then there's all the stuff we're learning from colliders - which wouldn't work if relativistic effects weren't considered (this includes particle accelerators for medical uses).

Then there's that small invention called: nuclear power (fission and fusion)

Then there's all the understanding of how chemistry works (like such questions why gold is that color and not silver like other metals.). Without modeling relativistic effects we couldn't have predicted some of the useful catalysts that have been found (we also would have never guessed that stuff like graphene exists, BTW).

Then there's stuff like airline and shipping compasses that use the relativistic sagnac effect.

When you go into serious engineering relativity is all over the place.

Jan 17, 2014
You missquoted the end of the sentence, which presumably should have read:-
"Otherwise it's no better than the theory of "souls/gods/unicorns/gravity waves exist".

No. Gravity waves are predicted and testable. If they don't show up as predicted then this tells us something. Souls/gods/unicorns aren't testable (like your 'theory'), so you can always redefine it to suit whatever is observed. That may be satsfying to some but it's not useful. It's not 'better' because it's not good for anything.

Of course souls/gods/unicorns are predicted and testable, and if they don't show up that does tell us something... exactly like gravity waves, gravitons, gravitinos, etc. Where's your logic?

Jan 17, 2014
AA I don't know how you do it. Expansion theory. Christ.

Word(s) to Reg: explain orbits.

I go to a great deal of trouble to write all this down in a book, and so do many other people. I ain't gonna spend hours doing it here. Read a f******g book, and don't come back with spurious illogical refutations such as "the moon can never drop below the horizon" and similar crap.

Jan 17, 2014
I go to a great deal of trouble to write all this down in a book, and so do many other people. I ain't gonna spend hours doing it here. Read a f******g book, and don't come back with spurious illogical refutations such as "the moon can never drop below the horizon" and similar crap.
Yep, one can always count on Reg to drop by on occasion, make sweeping claims about how everyone studying/researching cosmology is wrong, tell anyone who argues against his sweeping generalizations or questions his pronouncements that they are idiots or worse, then disappear until the next article on cosmology comes along. Nice to see you again Reg, guess you'll be moving along now?

Jan 18, 2014
Hi Maggnus,
Nice to know you are still breathing...if that's what they do on your planet.
Seriously, though, it seems to me that even the wildest, most unsubstantiated theories, totally unsupported by fact, are accepted for serious consideration provided they are based on the old establishment tenets, but, question those tenets (like "gravity") and, wow, you are obviously a nutter! We need a sea change in scientific thought all around the "gravity" area. I just put forward an alternative theory, OK not the only possible one but AT LEAST AS SUBSTANTIATED AS GRAVITY, and I get vitriol and polemic from all the clowns who can't be bothered to actually think about it. Look, gravity didn't exist until Newton invented it! Nobody is saying his equations don't work, or Einstein was wrong, they both produced methodology which help us to deal with observed reality - but they do not in any way explain what "gravity" is or rather what causes it's effects.
Anyway, feel free to have another pop!

Jan 18, 2014
Of course souls/gods/unicorns are predicted and testable,

Thne make a prediction for them.

Better yet: Make a prediction for something YOUR theory predicts that is at odds with the current models and we'll see when that rolls around. There#s a couple of interesting experiments going:
Dark mater detectors, gravity wave detectors, Anylses of the cosmic microwave background, material sciences has a lot of unanswered questions...

Pick any one and make a prediction. Please. Do. Otherwise your 'theory' is no better than 'god did it'...because you're always fitting your fantasy after the fact and never putting it to the test.

Jan 18, 2014
Dear antialias_physorg,
Of course souls/gods/unicorns are predicted and testable,

Thne make a prediction for them.


Either you didn't read my response properly, or you have no sense of humour and do not understand sarcasm.
Here it is, read it again,
"Of course souls/gods/unicorns are predicted and testable, and if they don't show up that does tell us something... exactly like gravity waves, gravitons, gravitinos, etc. Where's your logic?"
Perhaps its your IQ which is the problem? Or maybe we should construct a giant microscope or telescope for tracking unicorns, which are predicted to exist by many ancient learned scholars, we simply haven't been looking hard enough......same as gravity waves/dark matter/etc.

Jan 18, 2014
I never understood why we consider all mass as created equal. Newton and Einstein didn't have the resources that we do now, we have more data than they could have dreamed. We also now the hydrogen and helium are by far the most elements throughout the universe(approx 73% and 24% respectively). However the most mass in the universe is associated with dark energy and dark matter (72% and 23%).

This got me wondering if there's an extra gravitational force exerted from hydrogen and helium. So I went to wiki for atomic mass (http://en.wikiped...ic_mass) and found a table with something called the ratio of atomic mass to mass number. It's interesting because hydrogen tops the list at 1.007, and it slowly decreases until iron at .9988. I believe the numbers come from the mass-to-charge ratio.

I've tried to prove this added effect but my math sucks. Essentially, I think gravity is unique to each element, and only when there are huge quantities would you ever see it.

Jan 18, 2014
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I love the comments section.

Need more cantdrive, mikefrom NY and all the other fun folks.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

150 comments and no AWT --- did zeph pass away?


Jan 19, 2014
I don't see whats so hilarious about debating the final question Einstein himself tried to answer. Got any ideas to add yourself? Probably not, trolls typically aren't original. Until you have something useful to say, I suggest you let the grown ups talk

Jan 19, 2014
150 comments and no AWT --- did zeph pass away?

@meBigGuy
try re-reading and pay attention to syntax
Osteta and Nestle are most likely Zephyr
see
For example, at the water surface the ripples scatter with distance and their wavelength changes during it.

or
Because the spreading of surface ripples takes some time, each of both observers can believe too

posted by Osteta above – jan 17

and
If the light would be massless, it would propagate at distance like the ripple rings at the surface of water

posted by Nestle – jan 15

etc, etc ...

Jan 19, 2014
Need more cantdrive

You got it.

Why Einstein will never be wrong


Because his disciples aren't too bright...
http://www.ptep-o...2-18.PDF


Jan 19, 2014
Need more cantdrive

You got it.

Why Einstein will never be wrong


Because his disciples aren't too bright...
http://www.ptep-o...2-18.PDF

That paper said exactly - nothin'... The author was neither a disciple of Einstein nor had any real grasp of relativity.

Jan 19, 2014
References please?

@Captain Stumpy
see the Gödel metric and what Kurt used it for.

Jan 19, 2014

Either you didn't read my response properly, or you have no sense of humour and do not understand sarcasm.

I understand someone weasling out of putting their 'theory' to the test when I see it.
Which pretty much clinches it: you don't have a theory - you have a delusion.

Jan 19, 2014

Either you didn't read my response properly, or you have no sense of humour and do not understand sarcasm.

I understand someone weasling out of putting their 'theory' to the test when I see it.
Which pretty much clinches it: you don't have a theory - you have a delusion.

Got to admit that I cannot think of a way of "proving" my philosophy is correct, all methods seems to fall into the old trap that "if three plus one equals four" you end up proving that "one plus three equals four". By the way, all proofs for the existence of gravity as a force fall into the same class.
As far as I know, my theory is the only one that explains quantum entanglement, how a photon can visit all locations in the universe when moving from A to B, what time is, what momentum is, and where mass comes from, amongst other things.
How are your favorite pet theories doing?

Jan 19, 2014
By the way, all proofs for the existence of gravity as a force fall into the same class.

Nope: See gravity waves. Predicted by theory. Not measured yet. They are a REAL test of a REAL theory. The hallmark of that real theory is: it makes predictions that are at odds with currently observed measurements (because until now we have not had the ability to measure stuff on that level).

Got to admit that I cannot think of a way of "proving" my philosophy is correct

Then why do you defend it (or even would have an inclination to assume it's correct). You just basically said: I made it up and think it's correct. well..that's like religion ("I made god up and therefore he exists")

explains quantum entanglement,how a photon can visit all locations in the universe when moving from A to B, what time is, what momentum is, and where mass comes from

No. You make stuff up. But as you admit yourself: you can't test it. Making stuff up is not the same as explaining it.

Jan 19, 2014
Nope: See gravity waves. Predicted by theory. Not measured yet. They are a REAL test of a REAL theory. The hallmark of that real theory is: it makes predictions that are at odds with currently observed measurements (because until now we have not had the ability to measure stuff on that level).

See what I mean? I can easily make up REAL tests for my REAL theory, and find "we can't measure stuff on that level". Whoops, there goes a unicorn, pity we ain't got the technology to photograph something that fast.......
According to my theory,a photon can pass thru' every point in the universe on its way from A to B. According to various microsplit interference experiments, this is the only explanation for a photons' behaviour. Does that prove my theory? I don't think so.
Let me know when you find some Dark Matter, or gravity waves, then I'll accept Newton/Einstein.

Jan 19, 2014
Great article on how science works, and what science is. I'd go as far as to say that you couldn't claim to be a scientist unless you understand it. I agree with an earlier poster who said that these concepts should be taught early in science education.

Jan 19, 2014
As all the melatonin subsides in the commentators, i would like to request a time stamp of when articles are published by the author(s). Too bad theirs no polling functionality here. I would have liked to known if any of the commentators so far are biologists or chemists.. I never went college so don't ask about me.

Just an observation, it seems to me that when people discuss physics or Einstein that proceeding discussions often turn to space rather than the interactions of systems inside of a plant or the human body.

Tried to follow as much as possible above but the one upmanship ruins it. It started out well and the unique quality of the article should dictate that this comment thread should continue on for days, weeks or an aha moment is reached.

Don't give up, the photon does more than most physicists think! Solve that one first.

Jan 19, 2014
@Reg Mundy

I never understand you gravity athiests, always needing absolute "proof" to believe. The work done by Newton/Einstein is not only testable but also verified through the math, we just can't test all of it yet. Just because there are a few anomalies that aren't yet explained doesn't mean the whole of the theory is wrong.

Take for instance the theory I posted. It's not a redo of anything, just trying to pick up where Einstein left off. If you assume that there is an added gravitational force exerted by hydrogen and helium, than it actually resolves some of the anomalies in gravity. It would explain why the AU is increasing faster than expected since the fusion process takes 2 H to make 1 He, thus weakening the gravitational force of the sun quicker. It would also explain why we see some ultra massive hydrogen clouds clump together denser than gravity alone predicts. I have thought of many ways to prove this theory, just haven't been able to resolve any as of yet.

Jan 19, 2014
Great article on how science works, and what science is
This article essentially says, the general relativity is as correct, as the formula for calculation of the volume of sphere is correct. Until the object is spherical, this formula works well and can be never wrong. We can even agree, that this is how the contemporary science works - but my feeling is, that the science should be a bit more than this.

Jan 19, 2014
Great article on how science works, and what science is. I'd go as far as to say that you couldn't claim to be a scientist unless you understand it. I agree with an earlier poster who said that these concepts should be taught early in science education.


WRONG!! This article is the demonstration of an unstable mind. It selects specifics, like the calory theory to reach a general conclusion that is insane! Why not select the theory of "epicycles" to prove that even when a model fits experimental data, the physics assumptions on which the model are based is nonsence (a better word is crap!). Einstein's models are ALL the same crap. The genius of Einstein rests on only one fact, and this is that he realised that according to the greatest physicist who EVER lived, namely Galileo, the relative speed of light is ALWAYS the same. For this he is a genius! For the rest of his models and derivations he has been a physics-moron.

Jan 19, 2014
OK, Scroof, you got a theory that would explain some anomalies in current predictions, just haven't found a way to "prove" it yet.......
So whats so different to my theory, which explains many current anomalies, and I haven,t found a way to prove it...yet.
Well, there is one difference. My theory explains a whole raft of "anomalies" which no other theory seems to do.
If you look at relativity, it explains gravity as a "dimple" in the "fabric" of something called the "space/time continuum" - wow, what was the guy smoking to dream that lot up! Yet, on the back of E=MC2 a lot of people swallowed it, and sure enough, by dint of numerous experiments claim it must be true by implication - rejecting all alternative explanations for their results - even though those very experiments never quite gave exactly the expected and hoped-for results.
Anyway, 'nuff said by me, its rather like arguing with religious fanatics, if you believe that there's a heaven then there's a heaven, if you believe..

Jan 19, 2014
What's different is my theory is testable and based of data. You seem to want to reinvent the wheel, where as I'm trying to make it tubeless. Another difference is I have an idea of how my problem can be solved, yours seems to be "dreamed up". According to you, we've gotten this far on what, sheer luck? Gravities effect on celestial bodies is very accurately modeled by Newton and Einstein's equations. Whether spacetime is the true cause of gravity or not is pointless to me, you can still use the theory of GR to show how the heavens move.

Jan 19, 2014
".. claims to have "proven Einstein wrong". These either contain no mathematical equations and use phrases such as "it is obvious that..", or they are page after page of complex equations with dozens of scientific terms used in non-traditional ways."

Such are voices of people who fear to starve and freeze in the lonely dark future promised by Einstein's forbidding our civilization from speeds faster than 'light' in a universe whose traverse for trade and new homes demands a form of an ability to do so. In this same universe are travelers with this ability..the UFO's recorded and denied throughout history. That we have nothing needed by them that they cannot simply reach out and take is a fact of history. Ultimately our species will become nomadic to survive. First foraging among the low gravity wells of our own heritage, the Sol system, and then to any nearby bodies that we can reach that have matter disks in orbit. Fusion our power, hydroponics our food, ships our shelter.

Jan 19, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
@Uba
what REALLY surprises me is the LACK of noise from Ubavontuba!
Hey, UBA! why dont you post HERE that theory you showed me where you showed Einstein to be wrong? that theory you gave me via PM's?

i am SURE that others would LOVE to see it!

and i still haven't forgot you... i WILL get back to you on it.
To be clear, I only claim to have shown an Einstein assertion to be wrong, not his theories.


Jan 19, 2014
Hi Scroof
What's different is my theory is testable and based of data.

Yeh, right......
You seem to want to reinvent the wheel, where as I'm trying to make it tubeless. Another difference is I have an idea of how my problem can be solved, yours seems to be "dreamed up". According to you, we've gotten this far on what, sheer luck? Gravities effect on celestial bodies is very accurately modeled by Newton and Einstein's equations. Whether spacetime is the true cause of gravity or not is pointless to me, you can still use the theory of GR to show how the heavens move.

The Newton/Einstein formula survive because they are good working models of our reality. My point is that they in no way explain what it is they are modelling. They offer no insight into what gravity is, for example.

Jan 19, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jan 19, 2014
With decreasing distance scale (bellow 1.73 cm) the influence of underwater density fluctuations (Brownian noise) and longitudinal waves will become dominant and the water surface can be approximated with elastic quantum string, the matter density of which at each time and space interval is equivalent to energy density introduced into it. Briefly speaking, if we introduce some energy to water surface, then the surface becomes deformed and the another ripples will propagate more slowly through it. This leads into Schrodinger equation behavior, which has been already modeled with Couder experiments too.

The point of the Boltzmann brain model therefore is, the observable reality will be divided into two low-dimensional zones, which can be described with formal equations of QM and GR well. Outside of it these distance scales the observable universe behaves just like less or more complex mess.

Jan 19, 2014
We can actually recognize these two distance scales easily, because just at these two scales the observable Universe appears like being composed of less or more regular spheres. The large stars composed of mostly of electron orbitals are pretty regular spheres in the same way, like the electron orbitals. These two distance scales are the validity scopes of quantum mechanics and general relativity theories, at which these two theories work perfectly. Outside of these distance scales we can observe the CP and CPT symmetry violations, until the observable reality will not change into irregular mess again.

Therefore I don't like, when someone says, that the QM and/or GR are BS - these two theories have a good meaning in the random Universe model and we can model them with water waves - we just should respect their validity scopes.

Jan 19, 2014
Thank you for that Nestle. Excellent description of the wave/particle duality that our visible universe functions on. We know a photon exhibits both properties. I imagine gravity waves in the same way, only the 2d wave is a toroidal shell going in all directions emanating out from a central point. I think of gravity in a similar way, only the warp in spacetime emanates in all directions creating a sphere around the center of gravity, kinda like this (http://orbismedio...31.jpg). Everything within the radius of the sphere would feel a pull due to the "gravity density" of the central mass, with the vector force decaying over the inverse of the distance squared.

The thing for me is everything in the universe is energy, so why does gravitation rely on mass? I think it's actually due to the energy density of the atoms themselves, and that it's just because the mass to charge ratio for all elements are so close to 1 that mass alone works normally

Jan 19, 2014
Gravitational waves would play a role of underwater sound waves in this model (i.e. the random chaotic noise, in which these waves manifest itself at the water surface, being more specific). The gravity in this model results from shielding of these waves with massive bodies.

Jan 19, 2014
The thing for me is everything in the universe is energy, so why does gravitation rely on mass? I think it's actually due to the energy density of the atoms themselves, and that it's just because the mass to charge ratio for all elements are so close to 1 that mass alone works normally.

Am inclined to agree with your energy density postulate. I have other extension thoughts on it, but without extensive math skills, any verbal explanation might fall short of exactly what I want to convey. The closest I can say at this point is the sum is greater than the observed parts.

Jan 20, 2014
To be clear, I only claim to have shown an Einstein assertion to be wrong, not his theories.


@Uba
then share it
and allow those better versed in the motion of rockets than i am a chance to view your paper and refute it.

Jan 20, 2014
AA I don't know how you do it. Expansion theory. Christ.

Word(s) to Reg: explain orbits.

I go to a great deal of trouble to write all this down in a book, and so do many other people. I ain't gonna spend hours doing it here. Read a f******g book, and don't come back with spurious illogical refutations such as "the moon can never drop below the horizon" and similar crap.


Right, and then you go and call us religious zealots while you wallow in your delusions. No,no Reg, why don't YOU go read a book, and yes, you get to defend your ideas HERE because HERE is where you spew your bullshit.

Now, EXPLAIN ORBITS according to EXPANSION THEORY. Do it for all to see, big mouth (err, or big fingers, as required under the circumstances I guess).

Jan 20, 2014



Yeah, you could do GPS without relativity, but then you'd be off by more than 30 meters.


Your incorrect. An that is baseless supposition.

GPS satellites' clock rate and the receiver's clock rate are not adjusted as a function of their velocity relative to one another.

Check out Ron Hatch http://www.ivanik...lGPS.pdf
Engineering RESULTS trump theoretical models all day long.


Jan 20, 2014
Einstein will never (?) be proven wrong
If we omit some religious connotations, this page sums some problems with Einsteinian relativity well. Even if one third of them would be relevant, it would be enough to force the relativists into rethinking of their theory.

Jan 20, 2014
One can't help but laugh and shake one's head! Zephyr, Mundi, Prins, Scoofinator all falling over each other with their "it's obvious that my theory is the correct one, as anybody with a half a brain and isn't blinded by mainstream indoctrination can see"!

Oh the irony!

How sad this all takes place on a site devoted to science.... :(

Jan 20, 2014
@ Maggnus,

As usual you are displaying your ignorance: Galileo explained in detail that motion is the coordinate transformation from the inertial reference frame within which an object is stationary, into another inertial reference frame relative to which the SAME object is moving.

Einstein violated Galileo's inertia by transforming the coordinates of a moving rod into the inertial reference frame within which the rod is stationary: A TOTALLY PHYSICALLY aMEANINGLESS TRANSFORMATION. One need not prove now that Einstein "was" wrong since it needs no proof whatsoever that Einstein did not understand the simple physics that Galileo already explained 300 years before Einstein.

Jan 20, 2014
@ Maggnus,

As usual you are displaying your ignorance: Galileo explained in detail that motion is the coordinate transformation from the inertial reference frame within which an object is stationary, into another inertial reference frame relative to which the SAME object is moving.

Einstein violated Galileo's inertia by transforming the coordinates of a moving rod into the inertial reference frame within which the rod is stationary: A TOTALLY PHYSICALLY aMEANINGLESS TRANSFORMATION. One need not prove now that Einstein "was" wrong since it needs no proof whatsoever that Einstein did not understand the simple physics that Galileo already explained 300 years before Einstein.
And anyone with half a brain could see that it is obvious you have the correct answer, but for the fact they are blinded by being indoctrinated by mainstream science.

Right Johan?


Jan 20, 2014
it's obvious that my theory is the correct one, as anybody with a half a brain and isn't blinded by mainstream indoctrination can see
This is in essence the point of the above article too. Liberal proponents of new ideas have false sense of uniqueness, conservatives proponents of mainstream have a false sense of consensus.

Jan 20, 2014
One can't help but laugh at how simple minded Maggnus is. Are you sure you understand how a theory works? It's a set of logical ideas that intend to solve a problem. Tell me how anything we've said has been illogical in your (biased) opinion?

Is this not the proper forum for a discussion like this? I guess you understand the universe completely so this topic is below you.

I'll give you another thought to my theory. I find it odd that Newton's law looks a lot like Coulomb's law. Instead of mass we use charge, and instead of the gravitational constant we have Coulomb's constant.

I'll keep considering all of the logical theory's on this site until someone smarter can prove them wrong. So if you can, please do so. Otherwise, I'm gonna to continue to ignore your mindless comments just like I always do.


Jan 20, 2014
Is this not the proper forum for a discussion like this? I guess you understand the universe completely so this topic is below you.

I'll give you another thought to my theory. I find it odd that Newton's law looks a lot like Coulomb's law. Instead of mass we use charge, and instead of the gravitational constant we have Coulomb's constant.

I'll keep considering all of the logical theory's on this site until someone smarter can prove them wrong. So if you can, please do so. Otherwise, I'm gonna to continue to ignore your mindless comments just like I always do.

Boy you told me! You go Scroof! Tell us again how it is that your theory is so logical you only discuss the theory on a site that limits you to 1000 characters (not words mind you, characters).
Oh, wait I know! Its because it's so obvious anyone should see it!
FWIW the article is about how people who don't know how science works make erroneous statements about science. Ironic don't you think?

Jan 20, 2014
Today, the major part of theoretical physics has gotten lost in bizarre constructs that are completely disconnected from reality, in mockery of the methods that grounded success of physics for 400 years. Fortunately, an increasing number of people in the scientific community and the public are becoming aware that bold ideas such as "string theory" , multiverses, "chaotic inflation", Big Bang Theory, " Standard Model " have little to do with real physics and Reality. Unfortunately, before these fantasies took over, Physics was already ailing. Albert Einstein transformed physics in science-fiction and opened the field for his followers. !!! Mark Wise is leading theorist working on particle physics beyond the standard model. At a seminar he talked about the problem of where the masses of the elementary particles come from : We've been remarkably unsuccessful at solving that problem. We have no idea why neutrinos ( or any of the other particles) have mass or what explains their mass value

Jan 20, 2014
Economics can produce bubbles, and so can science. It appears to be a universal mechanism of human aspiration that, while following the seemingly obvious, methods can gradually slip into absurdity, leaving behind unresolved problems. A particularly worrying symptom of the current state of affairs in physics is so-called discovery of the Higgs boson at CERN. What was actually discovered were a number of unexplained signals, raising many questions for everyone who takes a sober perspective. These signals are pushed to serve as evidence for the long-theorized Higgs boson supporting the "standard model" of particle physics, although this standard model is not even a well-defined theory. The CERN particle search is the most expensive experiment ever conducted, and the thousands of scientists / without knowledge what "mass" is , I know !/, doing high-energy research there had to celebrate any outcome as a breakthrough, if only to justify the billions of dollars of public money being spent But I have more esteem for scientists' self-indulgent fantasies about imaginary multiverses or seeking the dark matter inside our Planet than for who, in pursuit of power, wealth, and military vengeance at expense of the environment and the well-being of humankind, are about to destroy our real world and thus put into danger the whole enterprise of Homo Sapiens on this planet.

Jan 20, 2014
And anyone with half a brain could see that it is obvious you have the correct answer, but for the fact they are blinded by being indoctrinated by mainstream science.

Right Johan?


Let us see whether you can answer a simple question. Was Galileo's explanation of inertia and relativity correct? Yes or no?

According to Galileo, motion is a transformation from the inertial reference frame in which the object is stationary into another inertial refrence frame in which it is NOT observed to be stationary: Yes or No?

Thus when you do a transformation from an inertial refrence frame relative to which an object is moving into the reference frame in which it is stationary, then according to Galileo this transformation has no physics meaning,

This is what Einstein did! And therefore Einstein was, and still is, "obviously" WRONG!

Jan 20, 2014
motion is a transformation from the inertial reference frame in which the object is stationary into another inertial refrence frame in which it is NOT observed to be stationary: Yes or No?
This is an acceleration or not? The motion doesn't imply the change in speed.

Jan 20, 2014
And anyone with half a brain could see that it is obvious you have the correct answer, but for the fact they are blinded by being indoctrinated by mainstream science.

Right Johan?


Let us see whether you can answer a simple question. Was Galileo's explanation of inertia and relativity correct? Yes or no?

According to Galileo, motion is a transformation from the inertial reference frame in which the object is stationary into another inertial refrence frame in which it is NOT observed to be stationary: Yes or No?

Thus when you do a transformation from an inertial refrence frame relative to which an object is moving into the reference frame in which it is stationary, then according to Galileo this transformation has no physics meaning,

This is what Einstein did! And therefore Einstein was, and still is, "obviously" WRONG!


Immaterial. And off topic. That you don't get that makes me laugh.

Jan 20, 2014
Albert Einstein did not know what he measured as a mass , did not understand the speed of light, what gravity is, no idea of time-space . It looks that 500 years from moment when Copernicus idea changed our view of the Universe time for new revolution. Yes ! I know what we measure as mass, what is gravity, what we measure as speed of light, what is time-space and why Universes may be like "potatoes" in different parts of time-space. I can explain what dark matter and dark matter is. More I can measurements of quantum time-space and how particles are created, from where is entropy. I can explain why we are so important for Universe but also why It dose not care if we will not survive. And please do not tell that halve brain or ....because our brain is just computer. It works the way it is programed. The equation E=mc^2 has nothing to do with reality. Simply : IT IS STUPID. Answer yourself about followers.

Jan 20, 2014
I find it odd that Newton's law looks a lot like Coulomb's law. Instead of mass we use charge, and instead of the gravitational constant we have Coulomb's constant. I'll keep

Actually Scroof... Not that it changes your point any, but - I believe Newton was here first, so Coulombs law looks like his...

Jan 20, 2014
Nothing gets the crackpots going like mentioning Einstein...

My favorite crackpot assertion: "I have an amazing theory that I am certain of, but I can't do the math."

Then learn the math! Nothing will confirm or deny your suspicions quicker than putting your ideas on firm ground and doing some calculations. I can't tell you how many times I had "GRRET IDEA!" only to have it dashed to pieces by cold, unfeeling, mathematical calculations.

Don't get me wrong. Unlike some people, I do think there is value in "crackpot" thought. If anything, it can help you to think outside the box.

What doesn't have value, however, is to wildly speculate, and then conclude that accepted theory is wrong because of that speculation, or because of your philosophical preference alone. Think it's wrong? Actually do the math. Try to understand why scientists reached those conclusions in the first place. You might be surprised by what you find.

Jan 20, 2014
The equation E=mc^2 has nothing to do with reality.

Actually, Remi, it has EVERYTHING to do with reality if interpreted as -
E (a result) = m (a variable within our observational capabilities) time c2 (a constant - that can also be anything, observed or imagined. Altho why he bothered to square it, I don't know).
IE - E (alertness) = m(1st cup of coffee in the morning) times c2 (me)
It was a subtle, non-obvious way of stating "you get what you get when you change stuff". IS genius in the way he stated - here's a simple formula that works in 99.999% of any case - you can apply it to whatever you'd like.

Jan 20, 2014
Nothing gets the crackpots going like mentioning Einstein...

My favorite crackpot assertion: "I have an amazing theory that I am certain of, but I can't do the math."

Then learn the math! Nothing will confirm or deny your suspicions quicker than putting your ideas on firm ground and doing some calculations. I can't tell you how many times I had "GRRET IDEA!" only to have it dashed to pieces by cold, unfeeling, mathematical calculations.

Don't get me wrong. Unlike some people, I do think there is value in "crackpot" thought. If anything, it can help you to think outside the box.

What doesn't have value, however, is to wildly speculate, and then conclude that accepted theory is wrong because of that speculation, or because of your philosophical preference alone. Think it's wrong? Actually do the math. Try to understand why scientists reached those conclusions in the first place. You might be surprised by what you find.


One of the best comments on this thread.

Jan 20, 2014
One need not prove now that Einstein "was" wrong since it needs no proof whatsoever that Einstein did not understand the simple physics that Galileo already explained 300 years before Einstein.

This is what Einstein did! And therefore Einstein was, and still is, "obviously" WRONG!


this is MONTY PYTHON logic at its BEST!

so... if that is the case, how would you explain the continued success of relativity today? If it is based upon a fallacy, then there should be no way that it would successfully answer ANY questions, especially regarding motion and/or light, etc.
and given that it IS so highly successful, that means...????
this is an easy answer!
...someone is full of bullcrap!
And I dont think it is Einstein!

reading a lot of the above comments is like watching Mony Python:
"so... if she weighs as much as a duck, she's made of wood, and therefore... A WITCH!"

Jan 20, 2014
@Scroofinator, Nestle/Osteta/Zephyr, johanfprins, Remigiusz
obviously, as each of you posit that you are considerably more intelligent than Einstein judging by the comments above, why is it that you are not widely known and your hypothesis are not accepted?
Methinks it boils down to PROOF
When Einstein brought a theory to the table, it was proven, and then adopted, and the world knew...
so far, you are bringing a LOT to the table, but you have gone nowhere.
IOW- you can talk all you want, explain all you want, use as much PYTHON logic as you want... your hypothesis goes nowhere because it offers no way to validate it.

Maggnus is right- yall always say
And anyone with half a brain could see that it is obvious you have the correct answer, but for the fact they are blinded by being indoctrinated by mainstream science

problem is... no one understands because we are not living in the heat of our faith, we are using logic and science.
denounce all you like.
no proof=pseudoscience

Jan 20, 2014
Never say never! There actually are problems with "spacetime", "c as a limiting velocity", the source of gravity, and a general misinterpretation of the dilation equations for m, l and t, which, for time, has to do with rates of information reception where data is carried by E-M photons. Einstein was correct however in his observation that "God does not play dice with the universe."

Jan 20, 2014
The equation E=mc^2 has nothing to do with reality.

Actually, Remi, it has EVERYTHING to do with reality if interpreted as -
E (a result) = m (a variable within our observational capabilities) time c2 (a constant - that can also be anything, observed or imagined. Altho why he bothered to square it, I don't know).
IE - E (alertness) = m(1st cup of coffee in the morning) times c2 (me)
It was a subtle, non-obvious way of stating "you get what you get when you change stuff". IS genius in the way he stated - here's a simple formula that works in 99.999% of any case - you can apply it to whatever you'd like.

Aww, come on people! How can anyone be on this board DISCUSSING THIS and not know why he "bothered" to square it?!? WTF? I mean look it UP, it's no harder than Pyythh....Pie Tag Goar Ass, you know ! What's his face? That old Geek guy with the pointy angles! Shheeeesh.

Jan 20, 2014
One need not prove now that Einstein "was" wrong since it needs no proof whatsoever that Einstein did not understand the simple physics that Galileo already explained 300 years before Einstein.

This is what Einstein did! And therefore Einstein was, and still is, "obviously" WRONG!


this is MONTY PYTHON logic at its BEST!


That's for sure. Since the mods gave up on their own board a couple of years ago almost all threads on Physorg basically morph into crackpot versions of "The Argument Clinic".

Crackpot: "No they don't."

Jan 20, 2014
Shockingly, more trollific comments from Maggnus. Can't even support a rational discussion. Just repeats himself over and over.

@ Stumpy
If you think I'm trying to be smarter than Einstein you haven't been following closely. I've said all along we have more data than he ever did, so maybe we can find something he missed. Do you not remember that Einstein knew his theory was incomplete? The reason I bring up these ideas is so people who have a better understanding and are better at the calculations might be able to make something of it. I'm trying to work through the math, don't assume I'm just making outlandish claims based on nothing. How have all you fundamentalists been doing for the last 100 years with blinders on?

@ Whydening Gyre
Thanks for clearing that up

Jan 20, 2014
The equation E=mc^2 has nothing to do with reality.

Actually, Remi, it has EVERYTHING to do with reality if interpreted as -
E (a result) = m (a variable within our observational capabilities) time c2 (a constant - that can also be anything, observed or imagined. Altho why he bothered to square it, I don't know).


Einstein didn't just "choose" c^2. E=mc^2 naturally falls out of calculating the work done in accelerating an object so that it moves through several inertial reference frames. The resulting integral has the solution of W = Delta sqrt(p^2c^2 + m^2c^4) from p_initial to p_final, where p is the relativistic momentum (which is obtained by calculating how a relativistic object should accelerate from a force). Since W = KE_final - KE_initial, this suggests that KE = mc^2 when p = 0.

Jan 20, 2014
Don't you crackpots get it? You're like the guy wandering around at a party and you run into a group of people all discussing a 3D stereogram, and they're all talking about how delightfully clever the picture is, but you CAN'T SEE IT. All YOU see is a haze of coloured noise. And they're all going on about how realistic the 1970 Corvette in the picture looks, but, but they must all be CRAZY because there's NOTHING THERE but a haze of coloured dots!

And then this other guy wanders by and before anyone can say more then "hey, hi Matt!" HE says, "Wow, cool, a 1970 'Vette!".

Which can only mean that HE'S IN ON IT and they're just trying to make you look stupid!

But Matt says, "No, no, look, step back right here, see, a 1970 'vette." But you know they're all just playin' you! And before long you start to figure out what those coloured dots REALLY MEAN! And your going to show them who's REALLY CRAZY!

Well, yeah. Except, you know, it really is just a 1970 'Vette.

Jan 20, 2014
then share it
and allow those better versed in the motion of rockets than i am a chance to view your paper and refute it.
I doubt anyone here would be interested.

Incidently, I don't think the PM system works anymore. Is it working for anyone else?


Jan 20, 2014
@Gawad
Word(s) to Reg: explain orbits.

I go to a great deal of trouble to write all this down in a book, and so do many other people. I ain't gonna spend hours doing it here. Read a f******g book, and don't come back with spurious illogical refutations such as "the moon can never drop below the horizon" and similar crap.


Right, and then you go and call us religious zealots while you wallow in your delusions. No,no Reg, why don't YOU go read a book, and yes, you get to defend your ideas HERE because HERE is where you spew your bullshit.

Now, EXPLAIN ORBITS according to EXPANSION THEORY. Do it for all to see, big mouth (err, or big fingers, as required under the circumstances I guess).

No, I didn't call people religious zealots, I simply used them as an example that once somebody truly believes in something, it is very difficult to make them consider any alternative.
By the way, I've read just about every relevant book, you obviously haven't.