Re: Article: A Century of Einstein

From: Ole D. Rughede (ole.rughede_at_privat.dk)
Date: 09/07/04 

Date: Tue, 7 Sep 2004 12:29:16 +0200

"Bill Hobba" <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:zv6%c.21756$D7.12770@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> wrote in message
> news:413c4409$0$250$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
> >
> > "Eric Baird" <eric_baird@compuserve.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> > news:q8jkj0pjcos3akorrn5vml7vg6dbdar89j@4ax.com...
> > > On 27 Aug 2004 06:38:46 -0700, bhanwaram@netscape.net (bhanwara)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >As a comment on other material in the thread, Scientific
> > > >American should be ashamed to imply that dissenting
> > > >comments on SR and GR are coming entirely from
> > > >those unable to handle the concepts of SR and GR.
> > >
> > > Curious, if true. :)
> > >
> > > When Einstein wrote Sci Am an article on the history of relativity
for
> > > an earlier anniversary issue, he took that opportunity to present
his
> > > own revised opinion, that while SR had looked like a good idea at
the
> > > time, the development route SR->GR was pretty much a historical
> > > accident, and that he no longer considered it to be proper to base
> > > gravitational theory on an SR foundation.
> >
> >
> > I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am
> > unable to comment specifically on its ideas and statements.
> >
> > It would be interesting if you could look it up and let us have
> > a link to further enlightenment.
> >
> > However, I guess that what Einstein had in mind, was his
> > realizing - as expressed in his adress 5th May 1920 to the
> > University of Leiden - that SR and GR should in fact be
> > aether theories; but unfortunately lacked any clue or relation
> > to the physical properties of the aether, therefore were in some
> > sense false theories: SR from the postulate of the constancy
> > and specific velocity of light in empty space as an empirical
> > "fact of experience", and GR from ascribing physical properties
> > and forces to the completely abstract metrics of space and time,
> > pretending to result from presence of massive bodies in space.
>
> You mean the lecture that concluded with:
>
> 'But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality
> characteristic of ponderable inedia, as consisting of parts which may
be
> tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.'
>
> Just being sure people understand what Einstein was talking about is
not the
> usual conception of an aether.
>
> >
> > The experimental evidence of the correctness to a very high
> > degree of both SR and GR without considering the fundamental
> > problems of the theories is an excellent example of apparently
> > valid conclusions drawn from false premises, which nothing
> > forbids in logic. To the physical society, on the other hand, it
> > was obvious there was something wrong in the basic assumptions
> > of Einstein's theories of relativity,
>
> References please - which physical society and exactly what was
wrong -
> specifically what experiment(s) it was not in accord with or logical
> inconsistencies it has.
>
> > - which probably explains
> > why Einstein was not given a Nobel prize for these theoretical
> > contributions in his theories of relativity.
>
> See chapter 30 Suptle is the Lord by Pais for the true facts. It was
> because of controversy about relativity at the time - controversy that
has
> long since been resolved in favor of relativity.
>
> >
> > While SR is a completely abstract theory of inertia, --- "Das
> > Relativitätsprinzip fordert nun, dass die Maxwell-Hertzschen
> > Gleichungen für den lehren Raum auch im System k gelten,
> > wenn sie im System K gelten": "The principle of relativity only
> > demands the Maxwell-Hertzian equations for the empty space
> > to be valid in system k, when they are also valid in system K",
> > and ...
>
> I have no idea where you got the above from but the modern conception
of the
> POR is that is applies to all the laws of physics in inertial frames -
not
> just 'Maxwell-Hertzian equations for the empty space'. Let us stick
to
> modern conventions rather than resurrecting archaic views as if they
we
> still valid.
>
> > "W = integral epsilon X dx = integral-0-v beta^3 v dv,
> > [der Bewegungsenergie des Elektrons] W wird also für v = V
> > unendlich gross": [the kinetic energy of the electron] W so
> > for v = V becomes infinitely great", where V is the undefined
> > velocity of light in empty space, assumed "from experience" to
> > equal the final velocity c = 2.99793458E10 cm/sec --- and
> > with GR an almost as abstract theory of gravitation, it should
> > follow from the postulate of equivalence between inertial and
> > gravitational mass that there is a one-to-one correspondence
> > SR <-> GR allowing the deduction of the one from the other,
> > provided application of the Newtonian - assumed universal
> > constant - G, meaning a transition from flat to curved space-
> > -time by khi(G), - and vice versa in the absence of khi(G).
> >
> > This, however, are such unphysical conditions that they
> > cannot be fulfilled anywhere in the real world, though GR
> > promises to reflect the Newtonian expressions at the limits,
> > and to deduce the perihel movement of Mercury in an
> > expression identical to what had already been found from
> > classical pre-relativistic physics, while SR should be limiting
> > also in GR in the opposite sense when khi(G) -> zero. The
> > result was necessities of operating with the field concepts
> > pretending to have ghostly physical properties, though still
> > without to get rid of the old night mare of action by distance.
> > Since then we learned that no action is performed without
> > mediating action of photons according to Quantum Mechanics.
> >
> > Now, however, by the principle of equivalence of inertial and
> > gravitational mass, SR and GR cannot be just contininuations in
> > limits of each other, but should rather be a folding in the limit
> > showing the affine one-to-one relations between SR and GR.
>
> I have no idea what the above is trying to say. The fact is SR
results from
> GR in the weak field limit.
>
> >
> > > So, in one sense, Einstein himself seems to have ended up as one
of
> > > the most eminent SR sceptics. Presumably by this time, that
opinion
> > > would have had trouble getting through peer review -- Einstein is
> > > suppsoed to have gotten heartily sick of peer review by this
point,
> > > and was probably using the opportunity of the big SciAm
anniversary
> > > article to put it forward in a way that no peer revewer or editor
> > > would dare block.
> > > (I think this is probably why the piece is missing from
> > > blibliographies like MTW's, where you might otherwise expect it to
> > > show up)
> > >
> > > Anyway ... I don't think that Sci Am 's current editors would want
to
> > > deliberately imply that Einstein's opinions, expressed in a
special
> > > cover article in their own mag, were based on Einstein being too
> > > fuddy-duddy and old-fashioned to be able to grasp the principles
of
> > > special relativity!
> > >
> > > He knew SR rather well, and probably spent a least as much time
> > > and effort wrestling with it than anyone else, and decades after
> > > developing the theory, simply seemsto concluded that, with
hindsight,
> > > it no longer seemed ot him to be the right path forwards.
> > >
> > > So, dissent does not automatically mean stupidity.
> >
> >
> > Einsteins attempts to find some GUT with an all convincing
> > equation, or "world-formula", was ship-wrecked by his inability
> > to deduce the physical properties of the massless aether medium
> > he had understood was a silent presupposition in PoR which,
> > of course should be the same in SR as in GR at any acceleration,
> > why one cannot speak of a PoR different from a GPoR.
>
> It is well known (eg see Chapter 7 - Gravitation and Space-time by
Ohanian
> and Ruffini) that the POR of SR can not be carried over to general
> coordinates as is.
>
> >
> > It is really much more astonishing, when considering Einstein's
> > brillant contributions to QM and the Mie and Weyl critics
> > together with the Kaluza solution, shortly after worded in an
> > alternative way by Oscar Klein, that Einstein did not succeed
> > in finding and describing the aether. - On the other hand it is
> > understandable that the task at that time might have seemed
> > overwhelming.
> >
> > To-day it seems obivous that the aether simply is the energetic
> > substrate of radiant energy from all astrophysical bodies,
> > replenishing abundantly the free energy filling all of space and
> > time to provide the medium of all fields and forces, and to
> > enable the gravitational phenomena simply by energy exchange
> > between all masses, thus also the phenomenon of inertia.
>
> If it is so obvious then you should have no trouble in pointing people
to
> the peer reviewed article where such is detailed.
>
> >
> > Therefore SR be correct, provided the aether energy density
> > u erg/cm^3 is constant and the same in the whole of space
> > and time to be considered,
>
> And the reason SR can only be correct if an aether exits and has an
enrgy
> density 'u erg/cm^3' (whatever u is) is?
>
> > and GR be allowed to operate on
> > space-time of final extension, provided the "cosmological
> > constant" Lambda (which is no constant at all) may be correct
> > in terms of the aether energy density u and pressure u/3.
> >
> > With the aether parameters as the 5th dimension then GR will
> > be perfected and fine-tuned in 5D Kaluza-Klein, since we have
> > the Aether Equations (CGS):
> >
> > kappa * U * V / G * h * c^2 = 1 dimensionless
> > G * c / kappa * L^2 = U * L / h * c = K
> > V * L / c * u / K*h = 1 dimensionless,
> >
> > u*V = U = 3.973637E-13 erg at T(Aether) = 2.692064 Kelvin.
> > K = 2.000343E3 dimensionless, L^3 = V = 1 cm^3, kappa =
> > 1 erg/(sec*g^2) from which to find the gravitational flux of virtual
> > energy linking any pair of gravitating masses by simple strings of
> > exchange energy in any line of connection between masses, though,
> > of course, effected by the aether acting from all directions of
space.
> >
> > Quantum-gravity follows from the interaction process between flux
> > and masses, at which sharp planes between aether and matter one
> > may consider the otherwise wave-described aether as the ordinary
> > quantum-vacuum, where photons are seen as QM-particles of
> > equivalent mass hf / c^2 and momenta of interaction according to
> > the law of universal conservation of mass, energy, and momentum.
> >
> > It follows from the first aether equation that G and c are functions
> > of the aether energy density u and its temperature T(Aether),
> > because u is proportional to T(Aether)^4, why G and c are real
> > variables with extreme magintudes in low energy physics below
> > T(Aether) = T(CMBR) = 2.692064 Kelvin, and in the very dense
> > aether of galactic kernels and the more exotic high energy physics.
> >
> > It follows further that there is no big-bang, no universal
expansion.
>
> The peer reviwed papers invalidating the singularity theorems that
show
> otherwise are located at?

J. M. Overduin and P. S. Wesson, Kaluza-Klein Gravity,
20.April 2001, p. 60-61:

"It may seem unusual that physical effects can depend on the
reference frame in which one observes them. In fully covariant
Kaluza-Klein theory this is a necessary consequence of trying
to measure a higher-dimensional universe with four-dimensional
tools. Perhaps the most graphic example of this is the big bang
itself. As demonstrated in § 6.7, the cosmological metric (68)
is five-dimensionally flat. The universe may therefore be far
simpler than previously suspected, in that it may have zero
curvature. What then of the big bang singularity, the Hubble
expansion, the microwave background, and primordial nucleo-
synthesis? In noncompactified Kaluza-Klein cosmology, these
phenomena, which are all defined in four-dimensional terms,
are in a sense recognized as geometrical illusions - artifacts of
a choice of coordinates in the higher-dimensional world [169].
Something like this occurs even in four-dimensional general
relativity when one works with comoving spatial coordinates,
in which galaxies remain forever apart and there is no initial
singularity [170]. Relativity is founded on the idea that there
should be no preferred coordinate systems; yet in spatially
comoving frames there is no big bang. This paradox has no
complete resolution within Einstein's theory, which must con-
sequently be seen as incomplete. In practice, one usually
regards the comoving coordinates as useful but "not real".
Noncompactified Kaluza-Klein theory gives us a new way to
think about these issues in terms of general covariance in
higher dimensions". http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/gr-qc/980518

I have previously given the link to this reference which exactly
matches the view I have held myself for many years on account
of the consequences of the aether physics I've sketched here.

> > The red-shifts are simple gravitational phenomena. Evidence of the
> > gravitational work which is enduringly done in the Universe, we
> > rightly may consider of infinte mightiness, although observations
> > are limited to a final space due to the ever reddening and darkning
> > of the light from the distant sources.
> >
> > Beyond the distant boundary of oberservation, glowing as the inside
> > of a black body at T(Aether) = T(CMBR), theoretical 2.692064
> > Kelvin, we must assume that the distribution of mass and energy is
> > exactly like what we observe here locally.
> >
> > The magnitude or mightiness of the Universe are we for ever
> > prevented from to understand, - but we may believe that the laws
> > of physics are universal and in effect over all in space and time.
>
> Your peer reviewed paper supporting the above assertions is eagerly
awaited.
>
> Bill

Thank you Bill! You are such a dear dumb fellow, with that
marvellous charm one usually finds with most retarded people
- yet able to babble out the most astonishing knowings about
physics - that one cannot but love you. I consider it useless to
ask if you really believe in your own sayings, since it appears
that your faculty of logical thinking seems mostly quite absent.
On the other hand, I may say, you now and then show these
brillant ideas that might do it worth hearing or reading what
you've got into your head, if you did not so often put the cart
before your pony when trying to understand the forcing logic
that contradicts your once grasped trivialities. Now say after
me: The world is great. It has more dimensions than Albert's
and Billy's primitive four. - And then please try to remember!

By the way, I think Eric Baird's point here is in fact the far most
interesting I have seen for long in these circles. Don't you agree?
Perhaps you and your faithfull Sancho Panza should give it a
closer look. - Not that Bob would understand anything, but you
tell him that in stead of echoing his fervently foolish parrottings.

Ole

> >
> > Ole D. Rughede
> >
> > >
> > > >I used to think that publication was somewhat more worthy.
> > >
> > > I shall try to track down a copy on Monday. I am now rather
curious to
> > > see what they've done with this issue.
> > >
> > > May 2004-2005 was always going to be an interesting twelve months.
> > > If I've got my group psychology right, the next months up til
> > > March/May-time are going to be worth watching.
> > > We've already had the Hawking announcement as a datum point (which
I
> > > wasn't expecting until August, maybe the conference date made him
fire
> > > off earlier), so now lets see how many more pieces can fall into
place
> > > before the anniversary of the electrodynamics paper rolls around.
> > > I'd expected Preskill to come back four weeks later with a
rejoinder
> > > saying that Hawking's approach wasn't compatible with SR, but
> > > Hawking's early shot seems to have resulted in a certain lack of
> > > detail, and he may have upset my little schedule.
> > > Still , if populations were /entirely/ predictable, they wouldn't
be
> > > so much fun.
> > >
> > > <looks at watch>
> > >
> > > Anyone heard from Preskill recently?
> > >
> > > =Erk= (Eric Baird)
> > > : " Do do that voodoo that you do so well. "
> > > : -- Cole Porter
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why relativists dont understand Einsteins 1905 mathematics.
    ... So, yes, Einstein *did* write it and I take back what I said. ... What Einstein actually did next was to assume that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable. ... Perhaps physics had been taken over by mathematicians who were interested in the mathematical possibilities. ... It was a fundamental change which the physics establishment used to get itself out of a hole having accepted a theory without proper scrutiny and not wanting to go back on its acceptance. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... >> I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am ... > usual conception of an aether. ... > POR is that is applies to all the laws of physics in inertial frames - ... >> substrate of radiant energy from all astrophysical bodies, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... > I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am ... > to the physical properties of the aether, ... > of Einstein's theories of relativity, ... > substrate of radiant energy from all astrophysical bodies, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
    ... > I have never read this article of Einstein in Sci Am why I am ... > to the physical properties of the aether, ... > of Einstein's theories of relativity, ... > substrate of radiant energy from all astrophysical bodies, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Fifth Dimension
    ... That is in Quantum Mechanics, for which, as I have already pointed out to ... Einstein considered Quantum Mechanics to be flawed. ... physics, ... Learn about conservation of energy, ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading