Einstein said that there is no preferred frame of reference,now suppose i am holding a bucket full of water and rolling it vertically,since there is no preferred frame i can consider the bucket full of water as my frame of reference and stationary,so now according to Einstein the whole cosmos is moving with repect to my bucket,Round and Round.but the water inside the bucket moves in a fashion that shows that bucket IS moving. does that mean that Einstein has gone wrong somewhere?

No. Einstein is right. From the point of view of the bucket, there is a gravitational force which keeps the water in the bottom of the bucket. The strength of that force varies a little as the universe rotates around the bucket (if it is swung in a vertical plane).

Einstein says acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity.

It's all relative you know. :p

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong."

-Albert Einstein


:cool:

Zion,

Of course Einstein was wrong. The only theory I heard that was more absurd than his Theory of Relativity is the Chaos Theory. Maybe he should have left physics to his wife, who was smarter than he was.

Tom

When you question whether Einstein was wrong I assume you mean his theories. Relativity has been confirmed countless times since it was first posited. I am of the belief that, given time (I'd guess late twenty-first century, so within the next hundred years), a new way of thinking will overturn Einstein's theories, but I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that Einstein's theories can ever be said to be "wrong." Newton's laws still apply perfectly well for most activities that happen in every day life. Another theory may overturn Einstein's in the same way Einstein's overturned Newton's, but his laws will still apply.

This is getting off-topic but one new theory I've read about recently is that the universe is composed of information and can be measured in bits (yes it's understandable this would come about during our current age of a computerized society). Discussing black holes, it relates thermodynamics and entropy with information. Another theory suggests the universe is timeless, and that the passage of time is but an illusion. Each new "Now" or moment is but one of a myriad of instants of a configuration space, each different. This later theory actually agrees with general relativity, and the book gets into details on how Einstein didn't go far enough into his own theory. I don't know that I agree with either but I thought I'd share them, cool ideas.

Weitzel,

We live in a universe where subatomic particles can have many dimensions. Each dimension is a factor in the "Grand Formula". If someone, like Einstein, doesn't have all the factors they create imaginary factors. Einstein's imaginary factor was "relativity". Heisenberg's imaginary factor was "uncertainty". They just made these up to suit their theories. Here is an example of one of Einstein's flawed theories:

"Gravity is the result of bent or warped space"

Sounds real cool unless you take the following into consideration:

A negative electric charge will revolve around a positive electric charge. Is space bending here as well? Send a neutron between the two and see what happens to the neutron. What?? Nothing happened to the neutron, I guess space isn't bent by charged particles.

Well if space isn't bent by charged particles, why would it be bent by mass?

I guess Einstein just created his "bent space theory" because it sounds neat.

Tom

<i>Well if space isn't bent by charged particles, why would it be bent by mass?
I guess Einstein just created his "bent space theory" because it sounds neat.</i>

There's a little more to General Relativity than you make out, actually. The difference between gravity and electromagnetism is that if you jump out the window gravity disappears (for you), but electromagnetism doesn't. That idea leads to the Principle of Equivalence, which in turn leads to General Relativity, with the whole curved spacetime thing.

It doesn't just sound neat. It provides a solid, testable, mathematically sound description of the observed universe.

How's your knowledge of tensors and Riemann geometry?

It is absurd to say that a theory is wrong. A theory is usefull or not usefull.

There are experiments that contradict Einstein's ideas, but there many others that sustain it.
So sometimes it usefull and sometimes not.

It has been found that when sending a beam of light around the world, one time with the earth's rotation and the other time in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation, that the latter is SLOWER (to do the experiment there's no need to really send the beam around the earth).
According to Einstein this cannot happen. But it does. So the theory (in this case SRT) is not usefull in this situation but modern aether science and other theories are (Newton & Lorentz etc.).

There has been investigation in regard to the bending of light and a great number of scientists have found that there is no bending at all.
And even if it were, there are a number of other theories around who predict the same thing.

It's just a human thing to make an Icon out of something and then go and fight all the stuff that goes against it.

If you ask me, Einsteinian science has been usefull and will be, but we can do better and there is better.
A theory of Everyrhing cannot be developped because of the paradigma of Relativity. So-called Peer review, dogmatic reactions, etc. is making it impossible for many scientists to carry out their research when this is not compatible with relativity.

James,


When did i start this thread?:D

bye!

zion:

On 10-24-01 at 05:53 PM, apparently. But why ask me?


c'est moi:

<i>It has been found that when sending a beam of light around the world, one time with the earth's rotation and the other time in the opposite direction of the earth's rotation, that the latter is SLOWER (to do the experiment there's no need to really send the beam around the earth). According to Einstein this cannot happen.</i>

Can you provide a reference for this, please? It sounds interesting. Was frame dragging taken into account?

<i>There has been investigation in regard to the bending of light and a great number of scientists have found that there is no bending at all.</i>

How do you account for the many observed gravitational lensing effects seen with telescopes?

<i>So-called Peer review, dogmatic reactions, etc. is making it impossible for many scientists to carry out their research when this is not compatible with relativity.</i>

But all we need is one observation which contradicts the predictions of relativity and it's back to the old drawing board.

there should be nothing that should termed as theory.everything has to be proved hypothesis.or it should be Axiom.


Now James,

Ridlle me this.
suppose an astronaut experiencing "weightlessness" in space tries the experiment with a glass of water.unless he has some skill the water will soon fly about the space ship.instead let the astronaut swing an object at the end of the string.the string will become stretched.another object would see the string tighten ,the spaceship whirling about him and if he could look out a window.According to Einstein the whirling astronaut must explain the tightness of the string using the same laws of physicsas his fellow astronauts.According to Einstein all motion is relative and all observers are entitled to observe and think of themselves at being rest.

real test perhaps of this situation would beto have first astronaut hold the object on the end of the string without twirling it.the object would float about with the string limp.then we would cause everything except the object to rotate:the astronauts,the spaceship,the star what would happen?According to Einstein the string would become tight.conversely if there were no were no astraonauts,stars,nebula,the swinging of the object would not have made the string tight in some place.the inertial mass of universe"does something" to space-time where the experiment is performed,any time that an object is swung relative to rest of the universe,the string becomes tight.both astronauts agree that the object is rotating relative to the rest of the universe!


bye!

AWW comeon you know why...you were the one who answered first and then blank...no response...untill yesterday...when it rose like pheonix...


hahahahahaaa...

bye!

James R

I sure hope that if I jumped out a window that gravity would disappear.

Tom

haha

Oh no!

there is nothing such as is preferred frame of reference :D so you know your jumping is not true from other frame of references.you are only applying force and the cosmos actually moves backwards to allow you to fall from window...:D

bye!

James R, you've clearly not understood what I've said
therefore there's no need to reply to your questions

c'est moi: I too would like it if you could provide a reference for this supposed evidence opposing Einstein's relativity. I think you must have made an error, or the experiment was in error, otherwise more of us would have heard about this...

There has been evidence found showing the incompleteness of other theories, perhaps--such as the current absence of the Higgs Boson suggesting the Standard Model's incompleteness--but Einstein's general relativity has withstood the tests of time as far as I know.

Joeblow:

Imagine that when you jump out the window you're encased in a box - an elevator-like container. There is no experiment you can do <i>while you're falling</i> which will tell you there is a planet below your elevator box. You can't distinguish in any way a falling elevator from an elevator floating in space far from the Earth. As far as you are concerned, gravity has vanished.


c'est moi:

Fair enough. It's your choice. Let the readers judge for themselves whether there are gaps in your assertions.


zion:

I don't control whether people reply to a thread or not.

Regarding your scenario with the astronauts etc. - I agree that it is possible to detect rotation relative to the outside universe.

James R,

What would it matter what I perceive anyway? Sooner or later I'd discover the truth(when the box hits the ground).

Tom

"I too would like it if you could provide a reference for this supposed evidence opposing Einstein's relativity. I think you must have made an error, or the experiment was in error, otherwise more of us would have heard about this..."

I've read about it here Marmet (http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/index.html)
and in different sources which I can't provide you because I've never written it down

your reply suggests very strongly that you underestimate the role of interpretation in science COMPLETELY, and that's not very goodd for someone related to university in some way( it's below your nick)

you'd fall of your chair if you'd know how many scientists around the world do not agree fully/partially with relativity, some of them forming organisations, some of them keeping silence and just carry out their job
it's the interpretation of the data, you see, so it is complete nonsense to say that relativity has withstand the test so far

Thanks for the post, c'est moi. I'll take a look.

c'est moi,

Thanks for the link. Awesome website.

Tom

Okay, granted that I only took a cursory look at the site and have not yet examined Marmet's specific examples, I'd like to point out the following...

Marmet is basing his adamant view that Einstein's theory is unnecessary on the fact that components of the theory (length contraction, time slowing, etc) are not "common-sensical" or "logical". They seem to defy "common wisdom" about the world. But just because we are not used to the effects produced (because we do not often travel at the speed of light or examine things on a quantum scale, for instance) does not mean that they are any less real or true. I disagree with Marmet's equal placement of "common sense" alongside the other more empirical and tried-and-true tenents of science. It is good to relate findings with our notion of common sense when coming up with a theory but to rely on such a subjective element so heavily is dangerous in the pursuit of science.

The other point I'd like to make is my disagreement with his statement in the preface of the first document:

The aim of this book is to demonstrate that using "Conventional Wisdom" and "Conventional Logic", classical physics can explain all the observed phenomena attributed to relativity. The arbitrary principles of Einstein's relativity are thus useless.

Even if all of this can be described classically, as Marmet claims, this does not mean Einstein's theory of relativity is useless!!! I cannot stress this enough, though it is of course my own opinion. I believe that creating different ways of looking at the world is one of the best ways to reach new insights about it. Einstein's picture does produce an accurate picture of the world, and it's not just extra baggage on top of the classical theory as Marmet might like to suggest, but an elegant mathematical view of looking at the universe.

That's my view on things right now. I'll take a deeper look at the site when I have the time.

Joeblow,

<i>What would it matter what I perceive anyway? Sooner or later I'd discover the truth(when the box hits the ground).</i>

When the box hits the ground, there's still no force of gravity, according to Einstein. There's only the force of the ground pushing up on the box.

Anyway, the point was that you can make the perceive "force" of gravity vanish by being in free fall, whereas you cannot do the same for electromagnetism. Do you agree?

James R,

No, I don't agree. If I was in a magnetic box, and the box was falling toward a large magnetic pole, I would experience the same effect.

Tom

Just this, I do not agree with Marmet with several things.
It's just one of the many links, and also one of the many qualified and intelligent people (marmet n'est pas n'importe quit tu sais) who have different views and their own paradigma.


"Marmet is basing his adamant view that Einstein's theory is unnecessary on the fact that components of the theory (length contraction, time slowing, etc) are not "common-sensical" or "logical". They seem to defy "common wisdom" about the world. But just because we are not used to the effects produced (because we do not often travel at the speed of light or examine things on a quantum scale, for instance) does not mean that they are any less real or true."

his not quite saying that. Just read more.

"Even if all of this can be described classically, as Marmet claims, this does not mean Einstein's theory of relativity is useless!!!"

That's is an opinion. He calculates and explains everything without using it, so for him relativity is ineed complete useless.

"I believe that creating different ways of looking at the world is one of the best ways to reach new insights about it."

Clearly, you do not have the same opinion here is the scientific community. And i agree with you. That's how it should be. The different interpretations are far too important to ignore.

"Einstein's picture does produce an accurate picture of the world"

maybe, maybe not
it remains entirely subjective and intuitive
I feel not comfortable with the Einsteinian view of reality, it is a mathematical view

"and it's not just extra baggage on top of the classical theory as Marmet might like to suggest, but an elegant mathematical view of looking at the universe"

indeed, Mathematical, therefore not REAL

I would be pleased if you will just already *think* about these issues and take distance from thoughts like 'relativity has withstaind the test so-far'
it's little more complicated than that

it is a world of paradigmas and ideas, and as history teaches us, there's always an established paradigma which claims to be the correct one, but it will always be attacked by a minority, and then, after a lot of stuggeling a new paradigma will be established

for the record, it is Poincarré who started with the term relativity far before Einstein and he published a book about it before einstein published his famous paper
Lorentz had the equotations, Poincarré the idea (actually newton also, but just very latent)
Einstein took credit of much work of others , not very nice

you might be interested in sansbury's work at
sansbury (http://users.bestweb.net/~sansbury/book98.htm)

just to show yet another quite different interpretation of the data

if the guy is right + some more developement of all this => there it is, THE unification of all forces

I'm quite sure that a theory of everything is already latent present in all these different views of all these scientists expressing new views
put all the best of it together on a strong foundation, et voilà

yet another one

..... (http://www.autodynamics.org/new99/Layman/EinsteinWrong.html)

c'est moi,

I would be pleased if you will just already *think* about these issues and take distance from thoughts like 'relativity has withstaind the test so-far'

Not to worry! I suppose some people might use boards like sciforums primarily because they wish to convince others that their opinions are correct, but that's not why I'm here. I'm a student and still learning; I admit that I am not an expert in physics. I'm here for the intellectual debate (thanks for providing some). Let me just point out that you ended my quote prematurely; I had finished that sentence "as far as I know." Your points are well taken.

As for paradigms, I am well aware of Thomas Kuhn's work and the role of paradigms in science. Point taken. I am not yet going to admit Marmet as one who will overturn the current paradigm though :)

Yes, the credit awarded Einstein often seems to diminish that given those who aided him in his theories. He by no means came up with his theories on his own. Minkowski, Poincare, Lorentz... Yes I agree.

put all the best of it together on a strong foundation, et voilà

You make it sound so simple! :) I'm not quite as optimistic, though I do think a theory of everything can be found (eventually). There are many hurdles left though. Take the recently-announced conspicuous absence of the Higgs boson (vital to the Standard Model which is the cornerstone of physics). They may yet find it but it's not looking hopeful. Also, I can think of many instances in history over the past few hundred years when prominent physicists have announced how near we are to knowing all the physical laws of the universe. The end of physics - time to retire. I think new discoveries will continue to push that end into the faaar future.

Thanks for the links.

Joeblow,

If you were falling towards a magnetic pole you would be able to do various electromagnetic experiments to confirm that fact from inside your box. For example, you could measure the induced voltage in a wire inside the box, which would tell you that the box must be moving in a magnetic field.


c'est moi:

<i>"Einstein's picture does produce an accurate picture of the world"

maybe, maybe not
it remains entirely subjective and intuitive</i>

No. It is supported by many objective experiments and observations.

<i>I feel not comfortable with the Einsteinian view of reality, it is a mathematical view</i>

All physical theories involve mathematics. Physics is a quantitative science.

<i>indeed, Mathematical, therefore not REAL</i>

Why is mathematics not real?

<i>Einstein took credit of much work of others , not very nice</i>

Einstein put the pieces together, and took a rather audacious approach in saying that the equations described a reality that we do not perceive under familiar circumstances. Anyway, you're only thinking of special relativity. General relativity was all Einstein (with a little mathematical help).

Physics is a quantitative science. You right, James R
This is the limit of phisyc, so it cannot create grand theory....

I also believe that there is a grand theory. It can "calculate" anything, but not mathematically. Human awareness, animals instinc cannot be quantitative.....but they are exist and make interaction with anything in this universe.
But i cannot imagine, how the theory will be...

I have to ask, have you read and understood Ralf Sansbury's work and that of Autodynamics?

Autodynamics hinges on the belief that neutrinos do not exist. Sansbury is up there with A. Plutonium, A. Abian (deceased) and others.

I suppose you also ignore the fact that these alternate views contradict each other to be by the by.

"No. It is supported by many objective experiments and observations."

there you have it again
interpretation (this answer is becoming a real cliché)

read Marmet's papers discussing special relativity, it's quite devestating
then, for general relativity, if there's indeed no bending of light and if it is indeed not compatible with mass-energy conservation, what's left of both relativities?

"All physical theories involve mathematics. Physics is a quantitative science."

you miss the point
relativity (both of them) gives a very very mathematical view of reality

"Why is mathematics not real?"

I can say that Time = Space and make a perfect mathematical model, but therefore, this does not mean it is *really* like that
maths is a tool, it's just very abstract

just this, for anyone in these kind of debates, don't get emotional because that's real stupid and irritating

lastely, concerning general relativity, my intuition tells me that it can't be correct simply because it makes gravity different from the three other forces
the EM force can attract and repulse for example
when we get these huge masses like starts and planets, suddenly, things must be different according to GR, it's not attraction that we see but curvature (spacetime). this doesn't sound right
and one thing is for sure, intuition is a very important factor in science
maybe gravity is a pseudoforce?
anyway, this link is also helpfull

energy science (http://www.energyscience.co.uk/)

c'est moi,

Below are a few excerpts from the link you've provided. Are you also in favor of the aether theory and how photons are created?

I regard the photon as a 3x3x3 cubic lattice array of 27 aether charges in a state of spin.

My photon theory is based on the hypothesis that a photon is not something that moves from A to B, but it is something that can be at A in a state of spin. By virtue of its cubic structure, as a transiently independent unit within the enveloping cubic structure of aether comprising those aether charges, its state of spin nudges surrounding aether four times per revolution and propagates waves which travel at the speed of light. Those waves are intercepted by encounter with matter, typically an electron, at B and this sets up a separate photon spin at B. The spin at B adapts so as to absorb the wave arriving from B and so there is communication at the speed of light between A and B.

So the task is one of deriving by pure theory the value of h in terms of the electric charge of each of those aether particles and the speed of light, both being aether properties.

The photon is produced at A when energy shed by matter drops into the energy sink of the aether.

A theory unifying gravitation and electromagnetism, a theory for proton creation, a theory allowing you to calculate the value of the fine structure constant are primary amongst those mysteries. My task has been to reveal to you the aether pathway which takes you to those solutions.

I'm really not "in favour" of any theory, because as I have already told before, I tend to think within 'useful and not useful'

Aether science is in many ways useful

if people wouldn't have the bad habit to "lock into" a particular model/theory, then there would have been a theory of everything long time ago
though, it appears that the American army is already in the possesion of some large chucks of a grand unifying theory

I think tha

accidently pushed the wrong buton

I think that the only thing that's really important now is that scientists stick their head together and create some free energy devices that work instead of poundering about theories etc. because according to me, a final world war mainly because of corruption and energy is about to come if things don't change quickly
it is not a question of 'if', it is a question of 'when'
instead of being 'sceptic' for free energy they should be searching!
we've got the MEG from Bearden, the Adams motor (see also www.geocities.com/adamsmotor for this) and some other stuff that does work
but these are small projects
and we need BIG projects founded by governments

my guess is that nothing will change, "we'll think of something at the moment" will remain the attitude and man will face a disaster
hopefully survivers will start a new era in harmony with nature
maybe they'll take some of the good technology with them such as the MEG

so, you see, whether Einstein is right of wrong, is not really important
that's something we can spend our time at when the world is back on the right track

Aether science is in many ways useful

For years, physicists were attempting to detect the existence of an aether, all the while wrestling with the implications of Maxwell's equations. Those equations describe waves as propagating through a medium. Their observations made this apparent. They assumed the same about light.

Along comes Michelson and Morley to perform experiments in which evidence should have been clearly detectable. But their experiments gave negative results. They said the aether didn't exist.

Special Relativity suddenly precludes the necessity for an aether.

Quantum mechanics then proclaims light can be described like a particle. QM later goes on to proclaim that not just light, but ALL matter is a wave-particle.

All these have shown aether to be a meaningless and irrelevant theory. :cool:

"For years, physicists were attempting to detect the existence of an aether, all the while wrestling with the implications of Maxwell's equations. Those equations describe waves as propagating through a medium. Their observations made this apparent. They assumed the same about light. "

maxwell's equatations haven't been changed since then
they still are based on the existance of the aether
so it is up to people like Bearden to go and rewrite them
isn't it marvelous how the system works

"All these have shown aether to be a meaningless and irrelevant."

why hasn't the scientific establishment changed maxwell's equatations?

"Along comes Michelson and Morley to perform experiments in which evidence should have been clearly detectable. But their experiments gave negative results. They said the aether didn't exist."

which can be interpreted in a whole different way

"Special Relativity suddenly precludes the necessity for an aether. "

i don't really care about SR

"Quantum mechanics then proclaims light can be described like a particle."

there are at least 4 major models in QP to describe photons and they all disagree, but they all work in different cases
it's not that simple

"QM later goes on to proclaim that not just light, but ALL matter is a wave-particle."

particle when observed
wave otherwise
matter consists of 'frozen' standing waves

you see, I don't care if there is any aether
all we can see is that there many theories out there who basically seem to be saying the same things in different ways

tell me, where are those gravity waves required by general relativity? they still haven't been detected, but they should be there according to it
I see, relativity has withstand the test so far, it's either way you see things

let us just use whatever the hell works and live in peace

find out how he derives the law of gravitation
I'll help you, it's here http://www.energyscience.co.uk/ph/p002.htm

i wouldn't call this not useful
but hey, who am I? I think you should take your time and read people's material first before saying it is irrelevant
Aspden is not just anyone
and if dogma wouldn't be the mascot of the scientific establishment his (and others') ideas would have been considered very valuable

maxwell's equatations haven't been changed since then
they still are based on the existance of the aether

why hasn't the scientific establishment changed maxwell's equatations?

Why? Maxwell's equations were correct. It was the theory that was wrong. SR, as the definition of it, is an absolute frame with which the speed of light is measured. SR says the speed of light is isotropic and is the same in every frame. It literally negates the aether theory used to describe it.

i don't really care about SR :( :(

tell me, where are those gravity waves required by general relativity? they still haven't been detected, but they should be there according to it
I see, relativity has withstand the test so far, it's either way you see things

Gravity waves should be detected under some extreme exotic conditions. Scientists do what they can. And the conditions have to present themselves in order to be observed.

all we can see is that there many theories out there who basically seem to be saying the same things in different ways

That's true. Some theories share duality with other theories.

particle when observed
wave otherwise
matter consists of 'frozen' standing waves

Not bad. I like that.

let us just use whatever the hell works and live in peace

Good attitude. Works for me.

BTW I read that other material on gravitation. :bugeye:

c'est moi:

<i>relativity (both of them) gives a very very mathematical view of reality</i>

You say that as if it's a bad thing. Not fond of maths?

<i>I can say that Time = Space and make a perfect mathematical model, but therefore, this does not mean it is *really* like that
maths is a tool, it's just very abstract </i>

Does it matter if things aren't "really like that", provided that the theory makes correct predictions about what we should see in the real world?

<i>just this, for anyone in these kind of debates, don't get emotional because that's real stupid and irritating</i>

Irritation is an emotion, isn't it? ;)

<i>lastely, concerning general relativity, my intuition tells me that it can't be correct ...</i>

Intution is not necessarily a good guide. Quantum mechanics is perhaps the most counter-intuitive theory we have, yet it is also perhaps our most accurate theory.

"Why? Maxwell's equations were correct."

most probably not
there's no notion of broken symmetry for example
www.chenier.org might be helpful for this
according to Maxwell the MEG shouldn't be working etc.

"Gravity waves should be detected under some extreme exotic conditions. Scientists do what they can. And the conditions have to present themselves in order to be observed."

no really true, read the matter myth for this where it is explained how the experiments work to detect those gravitation waves
it's not what I would call "exotic"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Isn't it so that General relativity suggests curvatures of the universe 60 orders of magnitude greater than those seen?
And indeed, I don't like maths (though I'm good in it) and I think it is fair to say that maths are just a tool and in no way can they provide a realistic model of reality. The maths themselves are not 'real'. And again, relativity does not necessarily explain everything accurately.
Marmet calculates the advanced perihelion of mercurius without using any relativity, so no spacetime curvatures etc. in other words, 'simpler' and as Occam's razor would prefer
and Aspden is able to produce the law of gravity without relativity
and a very big objection is again that it stands in the way of producing a theory of everything, Einstein couldn't do it, and decades afterwards, Einstein's followers are failing as well