What if Newton was not wrong?

[exchemist]

Interestingly, CE over in the Aquatic Ape thread is trying the same thing. "Don't listen to all those so-called experts and their published papers! Listen to my expert and her book! "

Well I normally view these cranks as being useful from the viewpoint of making us research the relevant science. I learnt from CE that elephants are descended from a semi-aquatic ancestor, which is something I didn't know. With quant , all I've got out of it so far is checking the frequencies of the hyperfine transitions employed in Rb and Cs atomic clocks. But perhaps it's early days.......

 

[foghorn]

This is actually a very good question. I'd be interested in Quant's answer to it. It might open his eyes a little.

I think it’s the twin ‘paradox’.
Instead of one twin boarding a rocket after first synchronising his watch with the stay at home twin.
I have, Fred's arms playing the part of the rocket twin, and Fred's 'stationary body' playing the part of the stay at home twin.
That way, we have an already synchronised body / arms at the start.

 

[exchemist]

By the way, this Dilip James guy really is quite seriously into his own made-up physics. He's written quite a bit, some of it relating to something he calls the calls the "Gestalt* Aether Theory of Gravity". But also other things that, like relativity, he's decided not to believe in, for instance the CMBR: https://medium.com/@dilipjames/does...ilip-d-james-m-sc-a-mus-tcl-lond-325df1a2bdf3

I notice this contains some of what I am coming to recognise as his trademark balls, in this case the absurd statement that the CMBR mimics the spectrum of hydrogen. The CMBR is of course black body radiation. That is the whole point about it! Nothing to do with any atomic or molecular spectrum, obviously. Which basic misunderstanding renders the rest of what he writes total rubbish. This guy doesn't just make up his own physics, he gets his facts badly wrong - and then goes on to make up his own physics on the back of that.


* Curiously I note that Write4U has also started posting stuff about "gestalt" in his bonkers maths thread. Is this a new trend of psychobabble, I wonder? Perhaps Deepak Chopra or somebody has made it suddenly fashionable?

 

[Pinball1970]

Gestalt* Aether Theory of Gravity". But also other things that, like relativity, he's decided not to believe in, for instance the CMBR:

Just internet age, woo-woo bullshit.

 

[exchemist]

Just internet age, woo-woo bullshit.

Yeah, that's why I wondered about Deepak Chopra, the high priest of all that.

 

[James R]

If I'm wrong at least I am in very good company, including the nobel prize committee which surely had ample time to assess the merits and demerits of relativity!

One thing you might not know about the Nobel prize is that it tends to be award for experimental work. Sure, theorists whose theories are experimentally verified sometimes get the prize along with the experimenters, especially in recent years, but in general experimental verification is a requirement before the committee awards a Nobel for Physics.

Einstein was awarded a Nobel Prize for his explanation of the photoelectric effect, which was well-verified when the prize was awarded. At the time, the theory of general relativity was in its infancy - it had had few experimental/observation successes on the board.

Anyway, like I said, science isn't a popularity contest.

Also, it's not too hard to drill down into the details of those people you mentioned who, in the early days, didn't like the ideas in the theory or relativity or who thought it was flawed. It turns out that either they didn't have a good understanding of the theory at the time, or opposed it on aesthetic grounds rather than on the basis of flaws they had found in it.

In other words, even very clever, accomplished people sometimes make mistakes or jump to conclusions when they really don't have justification for doing so. More than a few Nobel Prize winners have gone right off the rails into nutty woo woo territory later in their careers (or after retirement).

You should be wary of adopting views about science that rely on appeals to popularity or arguments from authority. That's not how good science works.

 

[James R]

quant:

I'd like to respond to the opening post of this (new) thread.

What if Newton were not wrong? What if he was correct in stating that both time and space were absolute?

You haven't explained how Newton could possibly be correct, given the 100+ years of experimental verification of the Theory of Relativity.

So far, all your posts have been essentially negative. You have been trying to poke holes in relativity, without making any impact.

I think you should present your argument for Newton being correct, if you have one. Or at least come up with a good refutation of something in relativity, which doesn't rely on a misunderstanding of that theory.

Look for example at the case where someone goes to meet someone on a Wednesday at a café in New York. A week later he returns to the same Café at the same time, again on a Wednesday, to meet the same person. As far as he is concerned nothing has changed he has returned to the same place on the same day of the week, at the same time to meet the same person.

It's a week later. Lots of things will have changed in the meantime. The cafe and the people in it will be different in various ways.

We are aware that during that time interval; the earth has been rotating on its axis at a speed of 1600 km/h approx. apart from that the earth has also been speeding around the sun at a speed of something like 107,000 km/h and at the same time the sun has been tracing a path through the Milky Way Galaxy at 514,000 km/h and the Milky Way Galaxy leaves them all in the shade by moving around the Universe at 2,000,000 Km/h. So nothing is the same, nothing is as it was. The first question is how can that be?

You just explained how it can be. The cafe has rotated around the Earth's axis 7 times. The cafe has moved around the Sun a bit. The cafe has moved around the centre of the galaxy a bit. All these things are true.

If you're asking why the average person doesn't notice some of these things (we all tend to notice the day-night rotation of the Earth), it seems to me that there are some obvious reasons.

What strange force causes events on earth to remain synchronized in spite of the huge distances and times that have taken place in the interim?

What do you mean by "synchronized", here? What are you saying "remains synchronized"? Be specific.

The second thought that occurs is, is that it doesn’t really matter what has moved, or how far or how fast it has moved; because the aether remains stationary and unchanging.

No aether has ever been detected.

Maybe a third thought should occur: one that involves a consideration of Galileo's observation that there's no way that motion at constant velocity can be detected, without "looking out the window", so to speak. Newton built on that idea and Einstein took it to it's logical conclusion.

This means that all positions can be plotted with reference to the aether, which acts like a Universal frame of reference.

Okay.

Is there anything in the universe that is at rest relative to this aether of yours? And how can you tell it's at rest relative to the aether?

What's the speed of the Earth, relative to the aether, and how did you determine it?

But, I ask you to consider the question of Dark Matter, according to recent research, and before the crazy theory of Dark Energy came along, it was calculated using sophisticated instrumentation that Dark Matter constitutes 90% of all matter in the Universe. Here is a quote from the Department of Energy USA: “Dark matter makes up about 85 percent of the total matter in the universe, accounting for more than five times as much as all ordinary matter. Dark matter played an important role in the formation of galaxies and the evolution of the universe.” Although here the estimate is given at 85% and not 90%.

If you're going to call Dark Energy a "crazy" idea, you ought to explain what's crazy about it.

That aside, consider the properties of Dark Matter, it has such low interaction with matter, that it is estimated that it can travel through a block of lead a light year thick without experiencing any interaction whatsoever and vice-versa. At the same time Dark Matter exerts a pervasive gravitational force. But the truly incredible property of Dark Matter is that it offers zero interaction with any type of electromagnetic radiation; everything from Radio-waves to Gamma rays can travel without the slightest interference from one side of the Universe to the other. Amazing.

Okay, so it's amazing. But do you have any reason to think it's wrong?

Do you know why the existence of dark matter is postulated? The idea wasn't just invented out of the blue. It was invented to try to solve some puzzling problems. What are your proposed solutions to those problems?

Just as amazing is the fact that these are identical (not taking into consideration the farcical luminiferous aether concept) to the properties the so scorned aether was once thought to possess.

I don't think that's right. For instance, who said the aether exerts a "pervasive gravitational force"?

The Ancients might have been smarter than we thought.

Which Ancients? The Mayans? The ancient Greeks? The Egyptians? The Babylonians? Paleolithic peoples? What did they say about the aether? I'm fairly sure none of them knew anything about the rotation curves of spiral galaxies.

If you would like to read more about this theory, consider reading "Redefining the Electron" available on Amazon.

Can you give me the summary? I assume you've read it.

Did you write it?

 

[DaveC426913]

Split threads! What a great idea!

 

[quant]

So far, all your posts have been essentially negative. You have been trying to poke holes in relativity, without making any impact.

I have come to the conclusion that Einstein did not receive recognition for his theory of relativity for precisely the arguments that I have put forward, the question is why did these refined men of science deny him the honour when people like yourself are willing to fall over backward to say that absurd anomalies such as; all other conditions being equal distances to a location can vary according to one's speed! Surely an absurdity from anyone's view but absurdly dedicated and blinded by faith people. I think Tesla put it very well when he said that: "

“Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”​

― Nikola Tesla
This is a surprisingly astute statement considering that even today people have difficulty in calculating the photon clock puzzle, for example. Although when they do make the attempt, they find that Einstein was full of hot air. It is at least re-assuring to learn that others have come to the same conclusion.

 

[DaveC426913]

Tesla put it very well when he said that:

Tesla had but a decade or three to even grapple with relativity. He died before the end of WWII.

It has been three times longer since his death than Einsteins paper had been around.

I hope your sources for relativity are a little more up-to-date than that.

 

[James R]

quant:

It's a little disappointing that all you're bringing to the table is "some people 100 years ago weren't fond of Einstein's theory of relativity, so it must be wrong".

Do you actually have any objections to relativity based on flaws you've discovered in the theory, or inconsistency between the theory and experiment, or something like that? Or is it just that you don't like the "vibe"?

I have come to the conclusion that Einstein did not receive recognition for his theory of relativity for precisely the arguments that I have put forward, the question is why did these refined men of science deny him the honour when people like yourself are willing to fall over backward to say that absurd anomalies such as; all other conditions being equal distances to a location can vary according to one's speed! Surely an absurdity from anyone's view but absurdly dedicated and blinded by faith people.

Einstein was highly honoured and respected by your "refined men of science".

So far, you haven't highlighted any absurdities in the theory of relativity. All you have said is that is doesn't make sense to you, essentially. It's all about the vibe, but your objections seem to be contentless in terms of tackling the subject matter.

Ad hominems against Einstein won't sink relativity, I'm afraid. You'll need to do better than that.

I think Tesla put it very well when he said that: "

“Einstein's relativity work is a magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”​

Did Telsa identify any errors in the theory of relativity? If so, what are they?

Or was Telsa just complaining about the vibe, too?

This is a surprisingly astute statement considering that even today people have difficulty in calculating the photon clock puzzle, for example. Although when they do make the attempt, they find that Einstein was full of hot air.

Did you have difficulty calculating the photon clock puzzle? If not, tell me what part of your analysis showed that Einstein was full of hot air.

 

[quant]

Einstein was awarded a Nobel Prize for his explanation of the photoelectric effect, which was well-verified when the prize was awarded. At the time, the theory of general relativity was in its infancy - it had had few experimental/observation successes on the board.

It had fifty years to grow up!

 

[quant]

Einstein was highly honoured and respected by your "refined men of science".

So far, you haven't highlighted any absurdities in the theory of relativity. All you have said is that is doesn't make sense to you, essentially. It's all about the vibe, but your objections seem to be contentless in terms of tackling the subject matter.

Ad hominems against Einstein won't sink relativity, I'm afraid. You'll need to do better than that.

I was just looking for a suitable forum in which to make my next post and found comparative religions, (to which I would like to invite you) when your post on what I had said about Newton caught my eye. Whatever, construction you might put it on it, however abstract you might think it to be, whatever mechanism you think is in place to make everyone see the same Universe is wrong, special relativity states that distances really do contract and time does dilate. The implications of this is that of two people starting off from Los Angeles and going to Las Vegas, for one the DISTANCE to Vegas will be 10 km and for the other the DISTANCE to Vegas will be 250 km. Remember both have started off from the same point at the same time and are travelling to Vegas by the same route. The only difference between the two travellers is that one is travelling much faster than the other. If that is not an absurdity what is?

 

[DaveC426913]

The implications of this is that of two people starting off from Los Angeles and going to Las Vegas, for one the DISTANCE to Vegas will be 10 km and for the other the DISTANCE to Vegas will be 250 km. Remember both have started off from the same point at the same time and are travelling to Vegas by the same route. The only difference between the two travellers is that one is travelling much faster than the other. If that is not an absurdity what is?

The universe is not obliged to make sense to you.

It's important to point out that we do not have access to reality directly. We observe and measure. In each person's frame of reference, they observe and measure the distance from one point to another. There is no observer outside the scenario that can tell us which one is "right" and which one is "wrong" They are both right because ... it's all relative.

 

[James R]

quant:

It had fifty years to grow up!

Are you saying that Einstein should have been awarded a second Nobel prize? Maybe so. However, only one Nobel in physics is awarded per year, and there are lots of physicists. People who deserve it tend to get their "turn".

It is worth mentioning that if you look through the list of prizes, you'll find a few others awarded to other physicists for work on things that either directly confirm or implicitly use the theory of relativity.

It seems like you're trying to make an argument that because Einstein was not awarded a Nobel specifically for the theory of relativity, therefore the theory must be incorrect/flawed/worthless/etc. Surely you can't be unaware that's a fallacious line of argument?

Apart from anything else, I have already pointed out several times that science isn't a popularity contest. However, if it was a popularity contest, then the theory of relativity would be right up there in the top 10 most popular physical theories, I'd wager.

Whatever, construction you might put it on it, however abstract you might think it to be, whatever mechanism you think is in place to make everyone see the same Universe is wrong, special relativity states that distances really do contract and time does dilate.

When you're talking about relativity, phrases like "really do" have to be unpacked. What exactly do you mean when you say something like "distances really do contract"?

Take the muon experiment, for example. Relativity says that in the reference frame of the Earth, the distance the muons have to travel to reach the ground really doesn't contract at all. But it also says that in the reference frame of the muons, the distance they have to travel to the ground really does contract.

So which is it? Answer: both. How can that be? Answer: relativity says that distance is relative. That is, the distance you measure depends on your frame of reference and on what you're measuring.

Relativity is the opposite of saying "everybody sees the same universe". "Everybody sees the same universe" is more of a Newtonian kind of statement, though even there it isn't entirely accurate.

Take a walk in the rain some time. Suppose the rain is falling vertically downwards before you start walking. When you're walking at a constant speed, you'll find that raindrops hit the front of your body, not just the top of your head and your shoulders. But the only way the rain can hit you from the front is if the raindrops are coming down at an angle, rather than vertically. In other words, when you're standing still, the rain falls vertically, but when you change frames of reference by walking forwards, the rain falls at an angle.

Did your decision to start walking alter the universe? Did you change the weather? Are you a rain God, able to alter the directions of raindrops at will? No. (Well, probably not.) It's just that the angle you see the raindrops are falling depends on your frame of reference.

The implications of this is that of two people starting off from Los Angeles and going to Las Vegas, for one the DISTANCE to Vegas will be 10 km and for the other the DISTANCE to Vegas will be 250 km.

Not exactly. Before either of them starts going, they will both agree that the distance is 250 km. When either of them is travelling at an appropriate speed relative to the Earth, the distance they measure will be 10 km. If one of them stays still while the other one travels, then they will disagree on the distance while the traveller is moving relative to the stationary one. But that's not a problem. If one person stands still in the rain while the other one walks forwards, they will disagree on the direction of the rain. But they can explain why they disagree. They can also calculate by how much they will disagree (in terms of distance, in the case of LA to Las Vegas, or in terms of rain angle in the other example).

Remember both have started off from the same point at the same time and are travelling to Vegas by the same route.

And both people in the rain are starting from the same point and travelling through the rain by the same route.

You don't think the universe splits in two every time two people say the rain angle is different, do you?

 

[FOLZONI]

quant:



Relativity is the opposite of saying "everybody sees the same universe". "Everybody sees the same universe" is more of a Newtonian kind of statement, though even there it isn't entirely accurate.

Take a walk in the rain some time. Suppose the rain is falling vertically downwards before you start walking. When you're walking at a constant speed, you'll find that raindrops hit the front of your body, not just the top of your head and your shoulders. But the only way the rain can hit you from the front is if the raindrops are coming down at an angle, rather than vertically. In other words, when you're standing still, the rain falls vertically, but when you change frames of reference by walking forwards, the rain falls at an angle.

Did your decision to start walking alter the universe? Did you change the weather? Are you a rain God, able to alter the directions of raindrops at will? No. (Well, probably not.) It's just that the angle you see the raindrops are falling depends on your frame of reference.

Not exactly. Before either of them starts going, they will both agree that the distance is 250 km. When either of them is travelling at an appropriate speed relative to the Earth, the distance they measure will be 10 km. If one of them stays still while the other one travels, then they will disagree on the distance while the traveller is moving relative to the stationary one. But that's not a problem. If one person stands still in the rain while the other one walks forwards, they will disagree on the direction of the rain. But they can explain why they disagree. They can also calculate by how much they will disagree (in terms of distance, in the case of LA to Las Vegas, or in terms of rain angle in the other example).

And both people in the rain are starting from the same point and travelling through the rain by the same route.

You don't think the universe splits in two every time two people say the rain angle is different, do you?

Greetings, James R.

I have not been on this forum for at least 4 years so was surprised to receive a message. I had been annoyed a number of Einsteinians here but it seems they might have died off.

Your insight is quite correct here. Einstein's relativity does NOT mean everyone sees the same universe with only a difference in perspective.

Penrose saw this when he wrote of two people walking past each other slowly on the street: for one person the Andromeda Invasion Fleet launched at Earth is already on its day. For the other, the decision to invade has not yet even been made. The implication is that special relativity (SR) is NOT objective, therefore it is not genuine science.

The rigmarole required for its acceptance goes back to Newton's absolute space and Lorentz's stagnant ether with Fitzgerald contraction.

None of that nonsense would have been invented either, if people had stuck with Galilean relativity: "all motion is relative". I.e. there is no absolute motion nor absolute rest.

Yorus faithfully
FOLZONI

 

[James R]

Greetings, James R.

Hello, FOLZONI.

I have not been on this forum for at least 4 years so was surprised to receive a message.

From whom? Did Quant call you to come and help him? Or are you talking about a notification from our forum software? (You can adjust those in your settings.)

Your insight is quite correct here. Einstein's relativity does NOT mean everyone sees the same universe with only a difference in perspective.

Penrose saw this when he wrote of two people walking past each other slowly on the street: for one person the Andromeda Invasion Fleet launched at Earth is already on its day. For the other, the decision to invade has not yet even been made.

This example refers to observations made of an event that is happening a very long distance away from the people on the street. You haven't provided all the details, so I'm not sure whether this is plausible or not, in the context of relativity. Anyway...

The implication is that special relativity (SR) is NOT objective, therefore it is not genuine science.

It's objective, in the sense that all observers can agree on which events occur and they can agree on the amounts of time, distance and such by which their respective observations of the same events will differ.

Your conclusion that "it is not genuine science" is misguided.

Some of the results of relativity are counter-intuitive, but they are never incompatible or inconsistent. Moreover, effects like time dilation have been thoroughly tested and confirmed in countless experiments.

None of that nonsense would have been invented either, if people had stuck with Galilean relativity: "all motion is relative". I.e. there is no absolute motion nor absolute rest.

Einstein's theory of relativity incorporates Galileo's insight that "all motion is relative" and that there is no absolute standard of rest. It doesn't refute it.

 

[Write4U]

* Curiously I note that @Write4U has also started posting stuff about "gestalt" in his bonkers maths thread. Is this a new trend of psychobabble, I wonder? Perhaps Deepak Chopra or somebody has made it suddenly fashionable?

I was illustrating the problem with semantics. There is no English word for Gestalt , which is a German word.

 

[Write4U]

Einstein's theory of relativity incorporates Galileo's insight that "all motion is relative" and that there is no absolute standard of rest. It doesn't refute it.

Rest is best described as motionless in relation to the environment 1 2. It is a process that overcomes physical or mental fatigue or weariness 1. Inertia, the tendency of all objects to resist any change in motion, is also related to rest 2. (MS Copilot)

 

[(Q)]

What if Newton were not wrong? What if he was correct in stating that both time and space were absolute? Look for example at the case where someone goes to meet someone on a Wednesday at a café in New York. A week later he returns to the same Café at the same time, again on a Wednesday, to meet the same person. As far as he is concerned nothing has changed he has returned to the same place on the same day of the week, at the same time to meet the same person.

The first Wednesday was a sunny day and the cafe was half empty where you met the person and left. The next Wednesday was raining and full of people, but someone hit you in the face with the cafe door as they were leaving trying to open their umbrella and broke your nose.

Notice the difference? See anything absolute there?