Re: Relativity, Scepticism and Humility in Science

From: Androcles (androc1es_at_nospamblueyonder.co.uk)
Date: 09/10/04 

Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 15:50:44 GMT

"Alex Green" <dralexgreen@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:42c8441.0409100438.3831ff69@posting.google.com...
| The current foundations of physics are relativity and quantum theory.
| Relativity theory is very badly taught.

That's because it is pure nonsense.

 There are two ways of
| presenting it, in the first the assumptions for SR are:
|
| 1. the speed of light is a constant for all observers

So why teach an assumption?
Teaching assumptions is VERY poor science. Nor is that assumption a
postulate of relativity. It is a result. Do you have the slightest idea what
is meant by "circularity"?

| 2. the laws of physics are the same for all observers (includes all
| motion is relative).

You just don't get it, do you?
"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover
any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the
phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties
corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. "
The examples referred to are examples of the PoR, and clearly NOT all motion
is relative. The stars do NOT revolve around the Earth. Foucaults pendulum
and the gyroscope act in a universal frame of reference. Do you wish to deny
they covered by the laws of physics?

| 3. the universe is homogenous and isotropic

homogeneous :
Etymology: Medieval Latin homogeneus, homogenus, from Greek homogenEs, from
hom- + genos kind -- more at KIN
1 : of the same or a similar kind or nature
2 : of uniform structure or composition throughout <a culturally homogeneous
neighborhood>
3 : having the property that if each variable is replaced by a constant
times that variable the constant can be factored out : having each term of
the same degree if all variables are considered <a homogeneous equation>

2 rules out quasars, cepheids and supernovae from main sequence stars
3 rules out time dilation

 isotropic
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary
exhibiting properties (as velocity of light transmission) with the same
values when measured along axes in all directions <an isotropic crystal>

Are you suggesting the universe has the properties of aether?
MMX says you are wrong.

|
| In the second, modern approach, the assumptions are:
|
| 1. The universe has a metric ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2dt^2

So why teach an assumption?
Teaching assumptions is VERY poor science. Nor is that assumption a
postulate of relativity. It is a result. Do you have the slightest idea what
is meant by "circularity"?

| 2. Any coordinate displacement (delta Y) in one coordinate system can
| be expressed as a sum of terms of differentials of the coordinates in
| another coordinate system.
| 3. Noether's theorem applies and ds^2 is invariant.
|
| See http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/notes/
|
| The first approach is not inconsistent with the second, it just has
| sweeping assumptions that unnerve the novice (ie: the novice thinks
| 'why should the speed of light be constant, what is so special about
| light?' and misses the whole point of relativity).

Oh? and what IS the whole point of relativity?
Why should the speed of light be constant, what is so special about
 light?'

| The second
| approach needs a lot of study but has simpler assumptions.

So why teach an assumption?
Teaching assumptions is VERY poor science. Do you have the slightest idea
what is meant by "circularity"?

|
| If contributors to sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity wish to
| object to relativity they have several attack points:
|
| 1. The assumed metric ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2dt^2 is wrong ie:
| inconsistent with observations or a special case.

Yes. It is wrong. It is abject nonsense. It nothing more than assumption as
you admit, and you have the burden of proving its validity.

|
| 2. A change in a first set of coordinates is not given in terms of the
| second by:
|
| deltaY = delta x (dY/dx) + delta y (dY/dy)+ etc..
|
| This is a basic theorem of maths so might be hard to criticise.

Then I won't bother. I only have to attack your assumptions, and I do.

|
| 3. Symmetries do not exist and/or there is not an invariant for every
| symmetry.

Then dtau/dt = 1 exactly, by symmetry.

|
| Now, attacking relativity because you don't like the twin paradox or
| time dilation or can't see why the speed of light is constant is where
| lack of humility comes in.

What the *** do human emotions have to do with anything?

Claiming the speed of light is independent of the source is where
the height of pomposity comes in.

| Nobel prize winning physicists are the
| intellectual equivalent of olympic gold medallists but much more
| selected. Even your university physics/maths professor is a regional
| champ. If you believe that all of these people could have considered
| time dilation and the twin paradox over a whole century and all got it
| wrong then humility should suggest to you that the fault could be with
| yourself.

Considered, carefully thought over and rejected, based on logic.

|
| So how can we be sceptical about a century old theory such as
| relativity?
Because it is illogical nonsense, of course.
Nobody got a Nobel Prize for relativity, so your argument is groundless
anyway.
Here's why relativity is a *** up. Doubtless you'll continue with your
anecdotal arguments and claim that mathematics is not to be criticized while
ignoring the criticism, still trying to to teach assumptions, but in your
face with them anyway.

              The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.

For quotations following, reference:
 http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
 ("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)

1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.

2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in empty
space.",
an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
remainder of Einstein's nonsense.

3) The equation
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v)) ,
the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
(1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.

4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
and the equation should be
½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
at the very least.

5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without considering
IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
  tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
  xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen

6) The statements
 "But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector space.

7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by feeding
the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a total
failure.
Check:
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)

Androcles.
|
| Any new, replacement theory must contain most of the results of the
| old theory because Relativity predicts a host of phenomena from black
| holes to quantum physics that have been discovered.

Here's a prediction from SR:
"Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly,
by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of
the poles under otherwise identical conditions. "
Since it is false, SR is a FAILURE. Its predictions are USELESS and WRONG.

 Sorry, but if
| your new replacement for relativity does not contain most of the
| tensor maths of the current theory then you must be wrong.
Nonsense. Relativity is wrong, period. Its predictions are worthless idiocy
and count for nothing.

| So
| sceptics, off you go to uni for a 3 year course on advanced maths.

Already done, I have my degrees, thanks. Have you? It is you that could use
a course in pure math, there is more than just linear algebra to math.
Don't you realize mathematicians are the most sceptical of all?
We know the difference between an axiom and an assumption
right from the get-go, and assumptions are definitely called
hypotheses to be tested.
Hypothesis: the speed of light is a constant for all observers.
True or false?
I move toward one light source and away from another.
c+v = c-v = c.
Calculation. trivial, by inspection v = 0.
This denies I am moving. By the contradition found, the hypothesis is false.
Your assumption is dead. Done. Finished.
|
| Alternatively you might replace the original assumptions in some way
| so that relativity is a special case. I have been trying to do this
| with the metric tensor but sci.physics.research will not post these
| musings for a good reason: without strong predictions for experiment
| and a clearly argued case the ideas are unduly speculative.

You don't have a clearly argued case. You have an assumption that is clearly
false.
|
| One method of criticising Relativity that is absurd is to go back to
| Einstein's century old papers and nit pick every problematic phrase.

Done.

| This is as crazy as maintaining that science is 'wrong' because Roger
| Bacon was not always consistent.

Oh, crap. You are blustering, trying to generalize. By your argument I'd
have maintain the whole of science was wrong because Einstein didnlt have a
consisten bone in his body. One man is not science.

| Relativity theory is the product of a
| million or more papers over the past century, it is not contained in a
| single publication a century ago.

Eat *** because 100,000,000 flies can't be wrong.
Honestly, who cares about repetition?

|
| Sci.physics is a good place for punting odd ideas around but if we are
| sceptical of current theory we should also be sceptical of our own
| theories, especially if no one but ourselves accepts them.

That's the most sensible thing you've said. Scepticism is healthy. Ignoring
empirical data is unhealthy.
 http://www.androc1es.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/actual_data.htm
Read and understand.
Androcles.

| Best Wishes
|
| Alex Green

Quantcast