Einstein's Relativity: the Terminal Madness of Our Civilization
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2017-06-11 15:21:00 UTC
Raw Message
Technically, the story is quite simple. In 1905 Einstein advanced his false constant-speed-of-light postulate and deduced (invalidly, but this is irrelevant here) the conclusion "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":

Albert Einstein, ON THE ECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."

However the innocently looking conclusion

"the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"

has an incomparably idiotic implication. The slowness of the moving clock means that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty million years are passing for the stationary system:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."

Except for marginalized "science deniers", nobody would agree that jumping sixty million years ahead in the future within a minute is insane - after all, scientists have been believing in it for more than a century. This universal and everlasting belief is the proof that the madness of our civilization triggered by Einstein's 1905 falsehood is incurable and terminal. Even if Einstein's relativity is abandoned for some reason, the madness will remain.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-06-12 10:12:11 UTC
Raw Message
Einstein's relative time (jumps in the future, differently aging twins, etc.) was his second idiocy. The original one was this:

John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."

The idea that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer is obviously nonsense. Consider the following setup:

A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency:

Loading Image...

The observer starts moving with constant speed towards the light source and measures the frequency again:

Loading Image...

Premise 1 (Doppler effect; experimentally confirmed): The moving observer measures the frequency to be higher.

Premise 2 (obviously true): The formula

(measured frequency) = (speed of the pulses relative to the observer)/(distance between the pulses)

is correct.

Conclusion: The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is higher than relative to the stationary observer. In other words, the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

All important Einsteinians, even the two Brians (Cox and Greene), have stopped singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity". Some (e.g. John Baez, Max Tegmark, Jim Al-Khalili, John Norton) have left the sinking ship and are now experts in different fields. The rest will follow them soon, but it's too late - theoretical physics is stone dead. Even Einsteinians know a dead science when they see one:

"Look, my lad, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now."

Peter Woit: "Physics is in a very weird state indeed now that physicists have adopted untestable metaphysical speculation as their program, with philosophers the ones trying to engage in more normal scientific practice." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9349

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

Frank Close: "In recent years, however, many physicists have developed theories of great mathematical elegance, but which are beyond the reach of empirical falsification, even in principle. The uncomfortable question that arises is whether they can still be regarded as science. Some scientists are proposing that the definition of what is "scientific" be loosened, while others fear that to do so could open the door for pseudo-scientists or charlatans to mislead the public and claim equal space for their views." http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/what-happens-when-we-cant-test-scientific-theories

Peter Woit: "As far as this stuff goes, we're now not only at John Horgan's "End of Science", but gone past it already and deep into something different." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7266

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

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-06-12 17:21:55 UTC
Raw Message
Unlike the idiocies of special relativity, the idiocies of general relativity are not deduced from postulates. They are just silly whims of Einstein or fudge factors that Einstein's mathematical friends combined in an empirical model in 1915. For instance, the insane idea of gravitational time dilation emerged in 1911 - the friends managed to include it in the 1915 empirical concoction and nowadays the idiocy continues to destroy human rationality:

"What is spacetime, really? It's a coordinate system, a kind of conceptual grid. It's a way of accounting for the dimensions of the Universe, where in addition to up and down, left and right, forward and backward, we also have time - the future and the past. The most revolutionary idea Einstein proposed was that physics only makes sense when space and time are inextricably linked together, where the way we travel through one changes the way we travel through the other. And gravity, a property of anything with mass or energy, changes both. The most extreme example of this is a black hole. Approach a black hole and, aside from ultimately being torn limb from limb by the steeply climbing gravitational field, you won't notice much changing. But relative to someone keeping a safe distance, your wristwatch, heart rate, thought processes, and every other aspect of your existence, will have slowed to a standstill. By the time you cross the event horizon, marking the point of no return, you will appear to the rest of the Universe as a slowly fading, darkening image of yourself. And if you look out at the Universe you've left behind, you'll see it whirling away in fast-forward, charging on into the future without you." https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/black-holes-cosmic-collisions-and-the-rippling-of-spacetime/

Einstein's general relativity is essentially equivalent to the "empirical models" defined here:

"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property." http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/documents/Intro_Curve_Fitting.pdf

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-06-13 05:48:06 UTC
Raw Message
Sabine Hossenfelder knows a dead science when she sees one, and she's looking at one right now:

Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee): "The criticism you raise that there are lots of speculative models that have no known relevance for the description of nature has very little to do with string theory but is a general disease of the research area. Lots of theorists produce lots of models that have no chance of ever being tested or ruled out because that's how they earn a living. The smaller the probability of the model being ruled out in their lifetime, the better. It's basic economics. Survival of the 'fittest' resulting in the natural selection of invincible models that can forever be amended." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

"Look, my lad, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now." http://youtu.be/RQhVLHu8HRk x

Pentcho Valev