Re: What's the beef with Einstein?

From: RP (no_mail_no_spam_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/15/04 

Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:35:51 -0500

Mike Silva wrote:

> There sure seem to be a lot of posts purporting to refute Relativity.
> What's the explanation for that?

If you want a valid answer, then ask those who refute it, because any
other reply would be speculative nonsense. Since many adherents don't
hesitate to provide speculative nonsense about the motives of others,
then that could be one clue as to why those who support the theory
cannot be trusted to provide objective input on "any" subject, that is,
especially since they have just proved the case made above.

The answer, from one of the sources suggested above, is that it isn't
testable to the limits required to distinguish it's predictions from
those derived from other approaches. Moreover, no paradoxes can be
derived form the premise of LET, though many erroneously conclude that
LET and special relativity are equivalent theories. Lorentz himself
voiced strong disapproval of the special relativistic interpretation.

Moreover, relativistic velocity "composition", is often referred to as
velocity "addition". Were this single grievous error in judgment removed
from the adherents arguments, then there would be less disagreement.
IOW, most adherents simply don't understand the theory well enough to
explain it, and are prone to assert fantastic predictions of the theory
that cannot be mathematically or even logically supported.

And then there is the twin paradox. The traveling twin supposedly
returns to find his twin has aged more than he.
Now suppose they both travel together after this experiment to some
distant planet (Planet X) that the traveling twin visited before he
returned to Earth. Now here's an enlightening twist to the argument:
According to the observers on Planet X, the twins were actually born
there, and were then transported to Earth as infants without their
knowledge. Moreover, they were actually "triplets", the third having
remained on Planet X for the duration. Now from the frame of reference
of the inhabitants of Planet X, which has been drifting away from Earth
at v for as long as anyone can remember, the stay at home twin (triplet
who was the stay at home twin on Earth) will have aged less than the
Planet X triplet upon his initial return to Planet X. (This is
equivalent to the twin paradox, albeit now from the frame of Planet X)
The traveling twin (triplet) will have actually returned to his true
home (Planet X) on the outward leg of his journey, and thus during his
stay, will have aged more, according to the inhabitants of Planet X,
than the Earthbound triplet during that stay, which in turn can be
arbitrarily long , i.e. since he is now aging at the same rate as the
PanetX inhabitants while the Earth triplet continuous aging less. IOW,
The Planet X inhabitants predict that upon the traveling twin's return
to Earth on the second leg of his trip, he will be older than his stay
at home sibling, rather than younger, which is of course contradictory
to what the Earthbound stay at home sibling expects. Thus when afterward
they decide to travel together to Planet X, the inhabitants there must
find that the traveling twin aged more than the stay at home twin. The
twin paradox isn't therefore a paradox, it's a blatant contradiction.

This pitfall is eliminated by the simple postulation of a preferred
frame within the context of LET. OTOH, General Relativity comes along
and says that the preferred frame is the collective mass in the
universe, and that its parts drag and distort space-time locally. Thus
special relativity is already made a special case that is valid only in
the absence of gravitational fields, and thus a special case that is
valid absolutely nowhere in this universe.

BTW, the second gripe against the so-called logical prowess of Einstein
is his insupportable prediction of a particle called the photon which
served as the basis of quantum theory, which to this day cannot be
reconciled with General Relativity.

I have no desire to be launched into prominence by defeating Einstein, I
am not seeking approval by any group, and more importantly my arguments
are reinforce by derivations of both an alternate to Fizeau's results as
well as nothing less than an entirely new empirically consistent
electromagnetic basis; the first to incorporate velocity of charges wrt
each other, thus eliminating the observer completely from
electromagnetic theory, and in so doing showing relativity for the
nonsense that it truly is.

You wanted an answer, there it is.

Richard Perry

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Whats the beef with Einstein?
    ... Pointing out experimental evidence in support of relativity ... >>And then there is the twin paradox. ... >>distant planet that the traveling twin visited before he ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Whats the beef with Einstein?
    ... >> There sure seem to be a lot of posts purporting to refute Relativity. ... >And then there is the twin paradox. ... >distant planet that the traveling twin visited before he ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Twin Paradox Question
    ... >>From the traveling twin's perspective, the twin on earth will be seen ... That's called the "Principle of Relativity". ... as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, ... from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: More Trouble for Relativity
    ... >|>| I say a perfect clock will not change one iota when in orbit. ... >|>| whether relativity is right or wrong. ... >same period as the rotation of the planet, ... We as the observer are flying over the ground beside the OC ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Any theory that yields a twin paradox must be dubbed bullshit
    ... Now i think Einstein did his guess to the best that was available. ... with special relativity. ... that there is no local contraction at all. ... twin that aged slower than the stay-at-home twin, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)