Einstein's General Concoction: No Postulates
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2017-06-06 13:00:24 UTC
Raw Message
Unlike special relativity, Einstein's general relativity is an empirical concoction - a malleable combination of ad hoc equations and fudge factors allowing Einsteinians to predict anything they want. This means that general relativity has no postulates:

What are the postulates of General Relativity? Alexander Poltorak, Adjunct Professor of Physics at the CCNY: "In 2005 I started writing a paper, "The Four Cornerstones of General Relativity on which it doesn't Rest." Unfortunately, I never had a chance to finish it. The idea behind that unfinished article was this: there are four principles that are often described as "postulates" of General Relativity:

1. Principle of general relativity

2. Principle of general covariance

3. Equivalence principle

4. Mach principle

The truth is, however, that General Relativity is not really based on any of these "postulates" although, without a doubt, they played important heuristic roles in the development of the theory." [end of quotation]

Sometimes Einsteinians call Einstein's 1915 final ad hoc equations "postulates" (we all live in Einstein's schizophrenic world, don't we):

"Postulates of General Relativity
Postulate 1: A spacetime (M^4, g) is a Riemannian 4-manifold M^4 with a Lorentzian metric g.
Postulate 2: A test mass beginning at rest moves along a timelike geodesic. (Geodesic equation) ...
Postulate 3: Einstein equation is satisfied. (Einstein equation) ..." [end of quotation]

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-06-06 23:06:10 UTC
Raw Message
Einstein's 1915 non-deductive (empirical) model became a paradigm for other models, and theoretical physics died. See at 41:11 how tragic the situation is:

Pondering the Imponderables: The Biggest Questions of Cosmology

Clearly, any insane Einsteinian is free to present his/her idiotic ideas as "a model", and to introduce as many fudge factors ("free parameters") as he/she wants. The bacchanalia can only be prevented if the presentation obligatorily involves explicit deduction of the conclusions of the model from a few clearly defined initial assumptions (postulates) - the method Einstein used in 1905 but ignored in 1915.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-06-07 06:39:51 UTC
Raw Message
For a deductive theory, demonstrating an absurdity implies that a postulate is false - the theory can be falsified in this way. For a non-deductive model (empirical concoction), demonstrating an absurdity has no consequences because there are no postulates. The demonstrated absurdity remains a small local nuisance, apparently unrelated to other domains of the patchwork model, and can be either ignored by the modelers or neutralized by introducing some additional fudge factor.

So in Einstein's general relativity we find the absurdity ("idiocy" is more precise) that the speed of light DECREASES as the light falls towards the source of gravity - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g. This is not deduced from postulates of course - the absurdity is a fudge factor Einstein and his mathematical friends had to introduce to make the gravitational redshift and gravitational time dilation compatible:

Albert Einstein: "Second, this consequence shows that the law of the constancy of the speed of light no longer holds, according to the general theory of relativity, in spaces that have gravitational fields. As a simple geometric consideration shows, the curvature of light rays occurs only in spaces where the speed of light is spatially variable."

"The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached."

"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. [...] ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). [...] You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. [...] Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential φ would be c(1+φ/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+φ. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. [...] ...we have c_r =1+2φ, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-06-07 14:33:28 UTC
Raw Message
Einstein killed physics in 1905 by introducing the idiotic relative time but there was some chance for resurrection - special relativity was deductive and therefore falsifiable, both logically and experimentally. The non-deductive general relativity introduced by Einstein in 1915 eliminated that chance - now we face the irreversible death of physics:

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

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Many of my colleagues believe this forest of theories will eventually be chopped down by data. But in the foundations of physics it has become extremely rare for any model to be ruled out. The accepted practice is instead to adjust the model so that it continues to agree with the lack of empirical support."

Sabine Hossenfelder: "The problem that nobody seems to want to talk about is that rather than trying to find a minimal model that explains the data and leave it at this, there are many hundreds of models for inflation all of which are almost certainly wrong because they contain too many details that aren't supported by data. As the philosophers have it, these models are severely underdetermined. Theoretical physicists produce these models literally because they can make money with it. They make money with it by getting them published and then using the publications to claim it's relevant research so it'll get funded and they can hire more postdocs to crunch out more papers. It's the same reason why theorists invent dark matter particles and extensions of the standard model. It's a way to make a living." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9349

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

"But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world-class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?" http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/22/schools.g2

"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