The Einstein Cranks:

[paddoboy]

Best response ever, paddo. Try to keep an open mind. I know it's difficult to do this sometimes, particularly here.

It was no different in Einstein's day; he had as many detractors as supporters, since 1905. It's like his mind was always going at the speed of light while most of ours were (and some still are) at rest. God bless Albert.

Thanks, and I do try to keep that open mind.
The point is of course while the great man did have his detractors, they were in the main quickly refuted, and of course at least from mainstream. Am I saying mainstream is a necessity? In essence yes. WMAP, COBE, Spitzer, HST, Planck etc etc etc go along way in helping us explain the Universe around us.

 

[Futilitist]

The fewer assumptions the better. An aether is just a HUGE assumption. A complex Pythagorean relationship between space and time is a HUGE assumption. The existence of a spatial origin for any coordinate system other than rotation is a HUGE assumption based only on success with doing geometry for Euclidean solids. You are better off assuming we exist in relativistic space, because we do.

I agree, the fewer assumptions the better. I do assume we exist in relativistic space. Galilean relativity assumes that. If you want to get fancy, at least Lorentzian Relativity doesn't try to mix time and space into some imaginary "space-time". At relativistic speeds, clocks slow down and lengths shorten. But time does not dilate, and space does not warp.

An invariant speed of light trumps a larger set of assumptions, because it is the single assumption relativity requires.

That single assumption might have made an ass out of Albert E.

The speed of light is not constant. It travels the "speed of light" only in a vacuum. It travels slower in a denser medium like air, and slower in water, and even slower in a much denser medium like glass. Light travels at approximately 300,000 kilometers per second in a vacuum, which has a refractive index of 1.0, but it slows down to 225,000 kilometers per second in water (refractive index = 1.3; see Figure 1) and 200,000 kilometers per second in glass (refractive index of 1.5). The aether is very thin, but it has mass. Thus, gravity compresses the aether, increasing it's density around large gravitational masses. This increased aether density slows the propagation speed of light, resulting in simple refraction (as seen in gravitational lensing and Eddington's solar eclipse observations in 1919). The existence of the aether provides a simple explanation of the solar limb red shift phenomenon. Relativity offers no explanation.

As an added bonus, the extra density of the invisible aether that collects around galaxies adds considerable invisible mass, aka "dark matter".

"No problem may be solved by the same kind of thinking as the one that created it." - AE

A proper understanding of the universe cannot be derived from denying the existence of that which must exist.

The existence of propagation of energy in a rotational and linear mode, the existence of an origin of time, time's arrow, and entanglement is as simple as I can make it. Which one of these ideas appear to be contrived of something not understood to actually exist?

Relativity as a given, Relativity's E=mc^2, the existence of energy in the form of photons, and time dilation that is different everywhere as per the description of Relativity are the foundational assumptions I have made. How many more assumptions than Relativity is that?

What are YOURS?

My most basic assumption is that light is a wave. As such, it must propagate through a substance. That substance is the aether.

And since light is not a particle, it cannot travel forever through outer space. An electromagnetic wave propagating through the aether can travel a very long distance, but not an infinite one. It must lose energy energy over time. Light must have a distance limit as well as a speed limit. That distance limit is approximately 13.8 billion light years.

Time is an emergent property of nature, not a fundamental one.

Gravity is a field effect. It travels at least 20 billion times the speed of light.

I further assume that singularities are mathematical artifacts. They do not exist in nature.



---Futilitist

 

[Schmelzer]

Paddoboy, our defender of the mainstream, who accepts any mainstream theory simply because it is mainstream, has decided to start a general rant against any disagreement with GR, by combining them all into a single group:

We have quite a number of anti Einstein cranks on this form, or at least a number who do not see or accept SR/GR space, time, spacetime and cosmology in general, as the way it is generally accepted in mainstream circles.. .... from the likes of Farsight, who insists that SR/GR views of 100 years ago, supported by out of context statements of what Einstein was supposed to have said, to a couple of current debaters in Schmelzer and Q-reeus who have entirely different views on relativity ...

This is a standard propaganda technique: Combine all your enemies of X into a single group. Given that there is nothing shared by the members of this group, except their rejection of X, one can find many members of this group which are wrong in quite different ways. The artificial combination of all these guys into a single group now allows to criticize this group as a whole by criticizing any particular member of this group for his particular faults. It is no longer this particular guy A, who errs or behaves inappropriately, but the jew/trotzkist/heretic/kafir/ether-crank/whatever-name-X-gives-to-his-enemies A who, with his horrible behaviour, discredits every jew/trotzkist/heretic/kafir/ether-crank/whatever-name-X-gives-to-his-enemies.

The really funny thing is that the fact that nothing unifies all enemies of X, except the decision of X to unify them for his own propaganda purposes, can be used against them. This "group" additionally discredits itself as a whole, and all its members, because they refuse to show any signs of unity:

.... by a couple of self aggrandizing posters totally obsessed in exaggerating there own importance. Yet this half a dozen or so posters and their alternative positions, all differ and vary from each other.

Thanks for the nice illustration of this common propaganda technique.

 

[Schmelzer]

If one is aware of the misuse of groups by propagandists who raise hate against groups, one should be careful to avoid the other extreme - a complete rejection of groups and all "prejudices" about members of this group. In fact, a lot of reasonable and rational knowledge has the form of such "prejudices". Members of groups like races, nations, genders, age groups, cultures share a lot of properties, values, habits, customs, ideas, emotions, habits and so on. To be aware of such group differences is very useful, avoids a lot of errors, and if one uses the "prejudices" in a rational way, namely as some initially plausible hypothesis about a particular yet unknown member of this group, which one is ready to correct if this particular guy does not fit, then there is nothing wrong with them.

So, in itself there is nothing wrong with considering the group of "ether cranks". The interesting point is that this type of rejection of mainstream science by laymen is very concentrated around a very few questions. In mathematics, for example, there were the following crank groups: Angle trisection, Circle squaring, Fermat proofs. In physics Perpetuum Mobile construction, Ether Theories, and Big Bang denial. In biology Anti-Darwinism. So, why are these few questions so attractive for cranks, in a world, where we have millions of other scientific questions, almost all interesting only for a few scientists, but completely ignored by cranks?

For the mathematical cranks and perpetuum mobile constructors the answer is simple: The problem they try to solve is one which can be easily understood. Moreover, almost everybody was (at least in the past, where public schools have not yet been completely off) confronted in school with such problems like constructing something by means of compass and ruler or with energy conservation, and, if one hears "this is impossible", one may nonetheless try, and all what is, then, necessary to become a crank is not accepting that the own attempt was faulty.

For the other three points the problem seems a different one. They have something in common too - namely that what is claimed by science, and rejected, is in clear contradiction with naive common sense. And that the evidence science presents to support this claim seems insufficient. Behind this is, of course, a quite reasonable principle: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And one becomes a member of the crank group if one does not accept the evidence presented by science as being sufficiently extraordinary.

 

[danshawen]

Lorentzian Relativity doesn't try to mix time and space into some imaginary "space-time".

But Lorentz Relativity DOES posit an origin to a coordinate system in inertialess space. Lorentz Relativity is also the preferred coordinate system of Einstein haters. Absolute time and space are both dead, since 1905. But you are not alone. A preponderance of theoretical physics and the math associated with it just seems to gloss over the idea that these concepts (absolute space and absolute time) are as dead as the geometry of Ancient Greece.

The speed of light is not constant.

Relative to WHAT? Assume inertialess vacuum everywhere. No one here is interested in the speed of light in glass unless you are an optician.

A proper understanding of the universe cannot be derived from denying the existence of that which must exist.

An irrelevant 21st century answer to the quote from Einstein. As I said, an aether is a HUGE assumption. It posits something that can provide references to absolute space and absolute time. The only absolute space is the center of rotation for bound energy. The only absolute time is the instant of "now" of entanglement.

My most basic assumption is that light is a wave. As such, it must propagate through a substance. That substance is the aether.

Well then, you have taken us back to the physics of the 19th century.

Time is an emergent property of nature, not a fundamental one.

Emergent from what, exactly? Surely not the bulk propagation / transport of bound/unbound energy.

Gravity is a field effect. It travels at least 20 billion times the speed of light.

This is a bold statement. How exactly did you derive or determine this?

Does your aether have a wind? Why or why not? Does the vacuum have inertia? Why or why not? Does unbound energy have inertia? Does bound energy?

Differences in the rates of clocks have been measured with as little as 1 meter separation in height near the surface of the Earth. We use it to make corrections to GPS on your smartphone every day you have been alive. Yet you seem to be saying, time dilation "does not exist." Was your head always this full of shit? Who taught this crap to you?

 

[Schmelzer]

But Lorentz Relativity DOES posit an origin to a coordinate system in inertialess space. Lorentz Relativity is also the preferred coordinate system of Einstein haters. Absolute time and space are both dead, since 1905. But you are not alone. A preponderance of theoretical physics and the math associated with it just seems to gloss over the idea that these concepts (absolute space and absolute time) are as dead as the geometry of Ancient Greece.

So, we have two loud claims of death, justified by nothing. Absolute space and time are compatible, in form of the Lorentz interpretation, with SR, and are also compatible with a similar ether interpretation of the equations of GR. So, to claim their death is a quite arbitrary metaphysical thesis, supported by nothing else than mainstream acceptance, an acceptance which is, by the way, not based on a discussion of advantages and disadvantages of different interpretations of the equation, but on positivistic ignorance of metaphysics: Metaphysics is physically irrelevant, thus, it does not matter what one thinks about such questions, to discuss them is meaningless, thus, anybody who questions the metaphysical ideas of the Founding Fathers talks meaningless things, thus, will be ignored.

As I said, an aether is a HUGE assumption.

The mainstream thinks it is not a physical assumption at all, so, not even worth to be discussed.

Well then, you have taken us back to the physics of the 19th century.

No, the ether idea is compatible with XXI. century physics, http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.0591 has been published in Foundations of Physics, vol. 39, nr. 1, p. 73, in the year 2009 AD,
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205035 in Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 22, 1, p. 203-242, in 2012 AD.

Above theories have GR resp. the Standard Model of particle physics as limits, are viable, compatible with all what has been supported by observation in modern physics.

Differences in the rates of clocks have been measured with as little as 1 meter separation in height near the surface of the Earth. We use it to make corrections to GPS on your smartphone every day you have been alive. Yet you seem to be saying, time dilation "does not exist." Was your head always this full of shit? Who taught this crap to you?

If one interprets the showings of clocks not as some mystical "time dilation", but simply as distortions of clocks by the ether, there is no problem at all with compatibility with the things you have mentioned.

 

[danshawen]

The mainstream thinks it is not a physical assumption at all, so, not even worth to be discussed.

In that case, tell us all about the physical properties of this aether. What is it made of? Does it have inertia? Is it capable of transmitting other kinds of energy other than light? By what means? Matter does not have a net electric field, so it can't propagate through the aether the way light does, can it?

If one interprets the showings of clocks not as some mystical "time dilation", but simply as distortions of clocks by the ether, there is no problem at all with compatibility with the things you have mentioned.

What justifies a distortion of clocks "by the aether"? What property of the aether allows it to do that? Doesn't gravitational mass or RELATIVE motion as a cause for time dilation need to be considered? What is this aether moving or stationary with respect to? How fast is it moving? Do you understand any actual relativity at all?

 

[danshawen]

Over the 110 year span since the introduction of relativity, all sorts of papers have been published that ignore both the letter and the spirit of the theory. I can't bear to read most of those. Whether these are from a lack of understanding or just nature doing what it seems to be best at (trial and error of ideas ranging from not quite achieving stupidity to brilliant), they once interested me, but no longer.

If your concept of physics includes a luminiferous aether, we have nothing more to discuss here. I have better things to do than to endlessly revisit the failed ideas of 19th century physics.

 

[paddoboy]

I agree, the fewer assumptions the better. I do assume we exist in relativistic space. Galilean relativity assumes that. If you want to get fancy, at least Lorentzian Relativity doesn't try to mix time and space into some imaginary "space-time". At relativistic speeds, clocks slow down and lengths shorten. But time does not dilate, and space does not warp.

That single assumption might have made an ass out of Albert E.

The speed of light is not constant. It travels the "speed of light" only in a vacuum. It travels slower in a denser medium like air, and slower in water, and even slower in a much denser medium like glass. Light travels at approximately 300,000 kilometers per second in a vacuum, which has a refractive index of 1.0, but it slows down to 225,000 kilometers per second in water (refractive index = 1.3; see Figure 1) and 200,000 kilometers per second in glass (refractive index of 1.5). The aether is very thin, but it has mass. Thus, gravity compresses the aether, increasing it's density around large gravitational masses. This increased aether density slows the propagation speed of light, resulting in simple refraction (as seen in gravitational lensing and Eddington's solar eclipse observations in 1919). The existence of the aether provides a simple explanation of the solar limb red shift phenomenon. Relativity offers no explanation.

As an added bonus, the extra density of the invisible aether that collects around galaxies adds considerable invisible mass, aka "dark matter".

A proper understanding of the universe cannot be derived from denying the existence of that which must exist.

My most basic assumption is that light is a wave. As such, it must propagate through a substance. That substance is the aether.

And since light is not a particle, it cannot travel forever through outer space. An electromagnetic wave propagating through the aether can travel a very long distance, but not an infinite one. It must lose energy energy over time. Light must have a distance limit as well as a speed limit. That distance limit is approximately 13.8 billion light years.

Time is an emergent property of nature, not a fundamental one.

Gravity is a field effect. It travels at least 20 billion times the speed of light.

I further assume that singularities are mathematical artifacts. They do not exist in nature.



---Futilitist

My apologies. You were not included in the group in the OP.
And of course this is the science section, certainly not for your fairy tale dreams of what you imagine.
We have the alternative section for that under "alternative theory"

 

[paddoboy]

Paddoboy, our defender of the mainstream, who accepts any mainstream theory simply because it is mainstream, has decided to start a general rant against any disagreement with GR, by combining them all into a single group:

No just stating it as it is, and the "tall poppy" syndrome that affects some.
And of course highlighting the fact that with all the Einstein critics, that they have nothing in common or any consistency other than "Albert is wrong" in their continued rants and ravings on the only outlet they have.
I suggest some of them try "Cosmoquest" and see how long they last.

Thanks for the nice illustration of this common propaganda technique.

That's OK. Perhaps to counter that excellent technique, you need to all collectively, at least find some common ground, other than "Albert is wrong" of course.
Plus of course Professor t'Hooft, Nobel Laureate thought it a good technique also as per post 14

 

[Futilitist]

But Lorentz Relativity DOES posit an origin to a coordinate system in inertialess space. Lorentz Relativity is also the preferred coordinate system of Einstein haters. Absolute time and space are both dead, since 1905. But you are not alone. A preponderance of theoretical physics and the math associated with it just seems to gloss over the idea that these concepts (absolute space and absolute time) are as dead as the geometry of Ancient Greece.

Nice declaration. Proof?

Relative to WHAT?

The speed of light is not constant relative to it's maximum speed.

Assume inertialess vacuum everywhere.

Are you assuming a perfect vacuum? If so, that is a false assumption.

No one here is interested in the speed of light in glass unless you are an optician.

You are not interested in the physical properties of light? That would seem to be highly closed minded for a physics discussion.

An irrelevant 21st century answer to the quote from Einstein. As I said, an aether is a HUGE assumption.

The aether is not a HUGE assumption. It is a logical one. Light is an electromagnetic wave. It has to propagate through something.

How do you explain the propagation of light? Does light travel an infinite distance?

It posits something that can provide references to absolute space and absolute time.

And your relativistic space and time are so precious to you that this makes you very nervous.

Well then, you have taken us back to the physics of the 19th century.

Sorry, but it might be a necessary correction. The 100 year wrong turn in physics was not my fault.

Emergent from what, exactly?

Change.

This is a bold statement. How exactly did you derive or determine this?

Gravity does not travel at the speed of light. If it did, Newton's equations would not work. Laplace made an estimate of the speed of gravity. He figured it was at least 10^8 times the speed of light.

Does your aether have a wind? Why or why not? Does the vacuum have inertia? Why or why not? Does unbound energy have inertia? Does bound energy?

Our movement through the aether might be detectable. The other questions don't seem very relevant. Why is inertia and unbound/bound energy important to this discussion?

Differences in the rates of clocks have been measured with as little as 1 meter separation in height near the surface of the Earth. We use it to make corrections to GPS on your smartphone every day you have been alive. Yet you seem to be saying, time dilation "does not exist." Was your head always this full of shit? Who taught this crap to you?

We do not use General Relativity to make clock corrections to the GPS system. Who told you that crap?



---Futilitist

 

[paddoboy]

Nice declaration. Proof?

The speed of light is not constant relative to it's maximum speed.

Are you assuming a perfect vacuum? If so, that is a false assumption.

You are not interested in the physical properties of light? That would seem to be highly closed minded for a physics discussion.

The aether is not a HUGE assumption. It is a logical one. Light has to propagate through something.

And your relativistic space and time are so precious to you that this makes you very nervous.

Sorry, but it might be a necessary correction. The 100 year wrong turn in physics was not my fault.

Change.

Gravity does not travel at the speed of light. If it did, Newton's equations would not work. Laplace made an estimate of the speed of gravity. He figured it was at least 10^8 times the speed of light.

Our movement through the aether might be detectable. The other questions don't seem very relevant. Why is inertia and unbound/bound energy important to this discussion?
We do not use General Relativity to make clock corrections to the GPS system. Who told you that crap?

---Futilitist

You are so obviously wrong in near all respects its really not worth debating with you. Your fairy tale assumptions defy observations and experimental results.

I suppose one of the biggest "kick-a-longs" that the Einstein cranks and general nuts have ever had is the invention and freedom of the Internet.
While probably the greatest invention of the 20th century, it is also peppered with plenty of crank/pseudoscience websites and nonsense.
With Einstein being probably the greatest scientist of the 20th century, the Einstein complex is certainly prominent in these nonsense websites.
Here are just a few.....
The Time Cube:
Autodynamics:
Einstein conspiracy:
Yun-Qi Kingdom:
Galilean Electrodynamics:
Specularium:

 

[paddoboy]

That single assumption might have made an ass out of Albert E.

And yet today 100 years later, it still stands as fact.
The very nature of light having no rest mass means it always moves at "c"
So really, who is the ass?

 

[Schmelzer]

The mainstream thinks it is not a physical assumption at all, so, not even worth to be discussed.

In that case, tell us all about the physical properties of this aether. What is it made of? Does it have inertia? Is it capable of transmitting other kinds of energy other than light? By what means? Matter does not have a net electric field, so it can't propagate through the aether the way light does, can it? What justifies a distortion of clocks "by the aether"? What property of the aether allows it to do that? Doesn't gravitational mass or RELATIVE motion as a cause for time dilation need to be considered? What is this aether moving or stationary with respect to? How fast is it moving? Do you understand any actual relativity at all?

Why?

 

[Schmelzer]

That's OK. Perhaps to counter that excellent technique, you need to all collectively, at least find some common ground, other than "Albert is wrong" of course.

No.

 

[Futilitist]

You are so obviously wrong in near all respects its really not worth debating with you.

You are obviously so insecure that you are afraid to have a real debate. It's not worth debating me, but it is worth making fun of me for some reason. That really makes no sense. If relativity cranks are such a big problem, and you are so obviously right, why just not prove it definitively?

So...here are a few simple questions for you to dodge.

1) How does light propagate through space?

2) Does light travel forever?

3) Does gravity travel at the speed of light?

4) If a neutrino has mass and light doesn't, how come a neutrino will go through a mountain but light won't?



---Futilitist

 

[exchemist]

Nice declaration. Proof?

The speed of light is not constant relative to it's maximum speed.

Are you assuming a perfect vacuum? If so, that is a false assumption.

You are not interested in the physical properties of light? That would seem to be highly closed minded for a physics discussion.

The aether is not a HUGE assumption. It is a logical one. Light is an electromagnetic wave. It has to propagate through something.

How do you explain the propagation of light? Does light travel an infinite distance?

And your relativistic space and time are so precious to you that this makes you very nervous.

Sorry, but it might be a necessary correction. The 100 year wrong turn in physics was not my fault.

Change.

Gravity does not travel at the speed of light. If it did, Newton's equations would not work. Laplace made an estimate of the speed of gravity. He figured it was at least 10^8 times the speed of light.

Our movement through the aether might be detectable. The other questions don't seem very relevant. Why is inertia and unbound/bound energy important to this discussion?
We do not use General Relativity to make clock corrections to the GPS system. Who told you that crap?



---Futilitist

Re GPS and general relativity, you might care to peruse the following from Ohio State university: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

But perhaps you think whoever wrote this is wrong too.

And light does not have to propagate through something. Maxwell's equations predicted that no medium was necessary and this was subsequently confirmed by the Michelson-Morley experiment. According to the current model, light is a disturbance in the electromagnetic field. You can call this field a medium if you like, but it has no physical substance.

 

[AlexG]

1. As an excitation of the electromagnetic field.

2. If it doesn't encounter an electron and interact with it, yes.

3. A gravitational field does not travel, but changes in the field propagate at c.

4. A neutrino does not have sufficient energy to interact with electrons while photons do.

 

[paddoboy]

You are obviously so insecure that you are afraid to have a real debate.

Not at all, I've debated with you before, and obviously when anyone pops into the place with a wealth of alternative hypotheticals that they claim as certain, the usual alarm bells start ringing.

It's not worth debating me, but it is worth making fun of me for some reason. That really makes no sense. If relativity cranks are such a big problem, and you are so obviously right, why just not prove it definitively?

Making fun of you? Your the one that called Einstein an ass.
And what you ask to be "proved" as essentially been done thousands of times.
But really, as you should know, proof in science, is rarely given.

So...here are a few simple questions for you to dodge.

I do not dodge my friend....although evident from our last echange, you certainly do.

1) How does light propagate through space?

Radiation, and like all EMR, it does not need a medium to travel through.

2) Does light travel forever?

Essentially yes, if it did not encounter any object or mass/matter to interact with.

3) Does gravity travel at the speed of light?

Yes.

4) If a neutrino has mass and light doesn't, how come a neutrino will go through a mountain but light won't?

Because a neutrino is neutral and light interacts.

And of course Futilistic, all those answers can be verified and are supported by evidence.

 

[danshawen]

The 100 year wrong turn in physics was not my fault.

The moment you wrote this, it was all over. You might as well be studying alchemy instead of chemistry, astrology instead of astronomy. What seems to pass for physics with you, has already been discarded as pseudoscience by everyone who knows relativity.

What do you use INSTEAD OF E=mc^2? Do you understand where that comes from? It wasn't from Lorentz.