Hoax - FYI

[MacM]

The following link is made here for those that still have an open mind and seek a better understanding than the typical "Because Einstein said so" response.

http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/hoax.htm

Please compare answers you get here with the statements made in this presentation. It seems highly accurate as to the current state of affairs.

Edited to note selection of #5 is taken to mean substantially valid and not strictly 100%

[James R]

You only need to read as far as section 1.4 to find out that the author of the article has no understanding of general relativity.

Most of the article, as a result, concentrates on special relativity, but is equally flawed. Like much pseudoscience, it mixes some true statements with a lot of fundamental misconceptions and incorrect assumptions.

I voted #2, only because a few of the statements in the article are correct. None of the main argument is valid.

[MacM]

James R.,

You only need to read as far as section 1.4 to find out that the author of the article has no understanding of general relativity.

Most of the article, as a result, concentrates on special relativity, but is equally flawed. Like much pseudoscience, it mixes some true statements with a lot of fundamental misconceptions and incorrect assumptions.

I voted #2, only because a few of the statements in the article are correct. None of the main argument is valid.

Thank for your partcipation. If you would I (and I think many others would be interested) make a more specific response. That is what key elements do you find the author is incorrect on, what is the correct interpretation and which points are you in agreement with.

Also I would be interested to see some responses with regard to the historical flaws in accrediting Einstein with so many achievments that were actually the work of others.

i.e - J.J. Thomson concluded the E = mc^2, not Einstein and then the work of Poincare, Lorentz/Fitzgerald and Larmor, etc. How has it happened that so much has been credited to Einstein that really seems to be the insight of others?

Also the fact that Einstein wasn't nearly so adomate about there being no aether but only that it wasn't required for calculation purposes.

[James R]

MacM:

Ok, I will extract a few pieces from the article (which is, after all, very long) and tell you what I think is wrong with them.

On the matter of credit, few people deny that elements of the theory of relativity existed prior to Einstein's publication of special relativity. That is the usual way that science develops - in a piecemeal fashion. Credit often goes to the person with the major insight, who puts all the pieces together. In the case of relativity, that was Einstein. That in no way diminishes the brilliance of other scientists such as Lorentz, Heaviside, Poincare, etc., all of whom are still very well known and whose names are attached to other theories. You'll note that none of these people complained about Einstein stealing their ideas.

Here are a few extracts from the article. They are not exhaustive, by any means. The article contains many other flaws.

1.4- The author's disillusionment became deeper when he began to study General Relativity. That theory supposedly explained gravity as a phenomena resulting from a curving of space caused by the presence of matter. However, General Relativity blithely fails to discuss the most significant characteristic of gravity, the force which presses you to your chair. Compared to the need to explain that force and the energy it represents, the corrections General Relativity provides to the Newtonian orbits of planets, the path of starlight, or the rate of passage of time are rather trivial. Incredibly, not only does General Relativity fail to explain the source of that force (and the energy it implies), many texts on the subject actually deny that the force exists.

The author does not understand GR. It does explain the force you feel from the chair pushing on you. That is not a gravitational force, since gravitational force does not exist in GR. The force you feel is the force which stops you from falling to the centre of the Earth, which is the geodesic path you would otherwise follow through spacetime.

1.6- The real test of an expert's knowledge is his ability to make his subject matter intuitively understandable to an intelligent layman. If he cannot do so, there is only one possible reason. Regardless of his credentials and his acceptance by his peers, the reason is that he doesn't actually understand his subject matter.

This is simply wrong. Modern scientific theories are often simply too complex for laymen to understand without additional study. The layman must make the effort to understand. There's no short-cut to deep knowledge of a subject, much as the author wishes there was.

2.7- When one compares the Aether Relativity Theory and Special Relativity objectively, one finds that they are identical theories and differ only in philosophical interpretation. Under the Aether Relativity Theory, space is filled with a medium called the Aether which acts as the framework for the Universe and our velocity through that Aether is concealed by the effects described above.

If this is true then, by Occam's razor, the additional assumption of an aether should be thrown away, since it is an unnecessary and unhelpful addition to the theory. It is invisible and undetectable and has no observable consequences which differ from those of an aetherless universe; therefore it is superfluous.

3.2- The insidious end result of that philosophy was verified by a telephone call received by the author from a physicist at a highly respected Ivy League University whose status was sufficient to have had his work described in Time Magazine. The author was advised that the physicist's sole job was to search for mathematical relationships which provided predictions and to devise and perform experiments which determined whether those predictions agreed with observation. It was not considered to be the physicist's job to provide an understanding of the mechanisms by which Nature achieved its results. That task was the proper province of philosophers and meta-physicists and was beneath the dignity of physicists. This viewpoint is reinforced by one of the most respected theoretical relativistic physicists in the world in a statement in one of the most prestigious scientific publications in the world. He stated that he was unconcerned as to whether a theory correspond to reality because he didn't know what reality was, he only was concerned that a theory correctly predict experimental results.

I suspect, MacM, that you strongly agree with this view.

This kind of statement is often made by scientists, particularly physicists, and just as often misunderstood by people such as the author of this article. The point is simply that our experimentally-based science cannot give us an absolute truth about the composition of the world. When we measure something or observe something, we do not see the thing as a whole, because by choosing to observe it in a particular way we extract only particular information about it. Theories and observations are interdependent, and neither looks at the ultimate reality - or maybe it does but we have no way of recognising that.

The bottom line is: if you can't test a theory in some way, the theory is not scientific. Maybe the ultimate reality is that every proton is made up of tiny elephants. Our theories don't take that into account, because there's no way to verify it. Now, you might consider it very important that a proton is made of elephants rather than hippopotamuses, but if it makes no difference to a physical theory it is irrelevant for the scientist.

Teachers of Special Relativity report that a significant percentage of intelligent and mathematically skilled students cannot master the subject.

That's because the theory is a physical theory, not, as the author claims, a purely mathematical one. The maths of special relativity is actually astonishingly simple. It is in the application of the maths to the real world where you need real understanding and careful application. In my first exam on relativity, I bombed out badly, because I was confused about reference frames. Once I sorted that out, I had a much better grasp of the subject. Not all students get over that hurdle.

It is difficult to envision a means by which the independence of their velocities from the velocities of their sources could occur unless photons were wavelike disturbances propagating through a medium. To date no explanations, other than the reliance on some form of magic, have been provided by the proponents of Special Relativity. Instead, they have shouted down the question whenever it was raised.

A fundamental misunderstanding again. The constancy of the speed of light in relativity is a <b>postulate</b> of the theory. No "means" is needed for the constancy. This is just a basic observation of the nature of our universe. A theory cannot explain its own axioms.

D:- The validity of the Aether Relativity Theory does not depend upon my ability to communicate using tachyons.
A little reflection should convince the reader that, if statement D is true, the mere fact that I can conceive of communicating through the use of tachyons demonstrates that the limitation imposed on the Special Theory of Relativity by Aether Relativity Theory represents reality. The classical Aether must exist!

What a strange argument. Am I to conclude that the validity of Aether Theory <b>does</b> depend on the ability to communicate with tachyons, then?

4.12- The "Fictitious" Forces of Acceleration:- Newton's Second Law of Motion states that for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction. An exception to this rule seems to be the forces associated with inertial and gravitational accelerations. A force must be applied to an object to change its velocity, but there is no apparent opposing force to match the applied force. The same situation occurs when one considers the force of gravity. As you sit in your chair you are conscious of a force pressing you against it, but, as with inertial acceleration, there is no apparent opposing force matching it.

This one is quite funny. The author is trying to be authoritative, but for a start he mislabels the action/reaction law as Newton's 2nd law. In fact, it is Newton's 3rd law.

The more grevious error, however, is that the author doesn't understand that action and reaction forces always act on different objects. The reaction for to the force of the chair pushing up on you is the force of you pushing down on the chair. It is not true that there is no reaction force in this case.

4.22- The Implications of Maxwell's Equations:- Based upon the discoveries of Faraday, Dr. Maxwell derived the famed equations which define the electromagnetic field. According to early texts, he did this by imagining "displacement currents occuring in space" even though he claimed not to have and understanding of what those currents could be and when Faraday requested an explanation of the theory in words, Maxwell is alleged to have been unable to provide it. If the author is to believe a recent communication, the current teaching is that Maxwell's Equations do not have a physical explanation, they just are!

Again, poor understanding, this time of Maxwell's equations.

The concept of a "displacement current" only occurs in one of the four vector Maxwell equations, and there it is only a convenient fiction used to express a more complex concept involving the electric field. The explanation following this which the author gives is fundamentally flawed in a number of respects, which I won't go into here.
-------

There's a lot more in the article - it's practically a book, although with almost no mathematics.

I wonder, MacM, if you've actually read the whole thing yourself, or whether you're just jumping on this bandwagon since it shows somebody else who disagrees with relativity.

I haven't analysed any of the thought experiments given by the author here since that will take more time and effort, and I've already shown that the author has a very poor conceptual understanding of the topics he is discussing. Hopefully, the above will help convince you that this stuff is not much good for anything.

[MacM]

James R.,

Thanks for your brief. I have read it and I don't agree with it in its entirety, nor do I agree with your casual discarding of some of his points.

In particular:

If this is true then, by Occam's razor, the additional assumption of an aether should be thrown away, since it is an unnecessary and unhelpful addition to the theory. It is invisible and undetectable and has no observable consequences which differ from those of an aetherless universe; therefore it is superfluous.

How does this square with the measurements showing the earth moving 700,000 (forgot the units) in the CMBR?

Also the biggest grievence I see in Einstein getting credits is the E = mc^2.

It just seems to me that it is more proper to credit him with the successful compilation of other theories. That is he didn't discover Relativity, that preceeded him.

I have seen several other articles that claim GR is flawed and contains a hidden aether. It also seems hollow to claim since one can calculate without it that it is supurflous. The issue should be what are the physical principles behind Relativity. If that happens to be an aether so be it, why reject it? That was infact Einstein's premis. He hadn't shown it didn't exist but only that we didn't need it. In fact he said nothing could actually jpropagate through space without it. Yet today it is thaught and claimed that he proved it didn't exist. That is a false claim.

His arguement about comparing a shock wave traveling through a rod and noting the rods physical parmeters and then saying it would be considered foolish to say they travel via the parameters in absence of the physical rod; when compared to claiming the propagation of light to be the parameters of space without giving those parameters a physical medium seems quite logical. In other words those parameters are properties of an aether. Just as Einstein said it had to be.

[Crisp]

I have also posted comments on this article in the previous thread you mentioned it in ... the "UniKEF analysis thread".

In short: it is just another piece of internet-pseudo-scientific writings. The author mislabels the first formula found in the text, and then gives ridiculous arguments on FTL travel.

Bye!

Crisp

[MacM]

Crisp,

I also posted a reply to your response over there.

Thanks.

[1100f]

"Because Einstein said so" response.

It is not the first time that I see this sentence in this forum. Where did you ever see this sentence given by a physicist?

[MacM]

1100PF,

It is not the first time that I see this sentence in this forum. Where did you ever see this sentence given by a physicist?

ANS: This is a generalization covering many responses which assert the validity of Relativity as support of Relativity without addressing the question in a direct way.

For example, James responded above that the author just doesn't understand GR. I can make a simular response by saying "UniKEF is the correct view but you just don't undersand it".

I don't think you would accept that statement. The point is why should we accept simular statements supporting Relativity?

There needs to be greater detail showing why something is in error or is supported.

[Persol]

You can only try to explain something to someone so many times. When it is obvious they don't really care about learning it you give up. The sad thing is that I'm pretty sure several of us have spent more time wading through your theory then you have learning science.

[MacM]

Persol,

[quote]You can only try to explain something to someone so many times. When it is obvious they don't really care about learning it you give up. The sad thing is that I'm pretty sure several of us have spent more time wading through your theory then you have learning science.[quote]

ANS: I do fail to see the connection between this article I posted and my own theory. The object here would be to make specific contribution by showing where his claims are invalid and why. Statements that "The author doesn't understand GR", etc., really don't do much in the way of teaching.

[Persol]

Well, the author is not here. That given, most of us can easily see what is wrong with this. So who are we explaining this too? I can think of one answer, hence my post above.

[MacM]

Persol,

Well, the author is not here. That given, most of us can easily see what is wrong with this. So who are we explaining this too? I can think of one answer, hence my post above.

ANS:Your reply is still unresponsive and my assertion stands. You have not addressed anything that this author has said. You are only making noise about he is wrong and we are right.

Try addressing some specific issues with specific proofs. For example what is your explanation that at the November 1977 American Astronomical Society Convention in Atlanta, Ga, it was announced that testing had shown the earth was moving at 700,000 Mph through the CMBR. Of course any such finding puts the claim that there is no ether or absolute reference in the trash.

I would be happy to just see you answer this one issue with a bonafide response that can be verified. I have no doubts that much of this paper is full of holes but I also have no doubt that there is a great deal here that you and many others would rather just got buried since you will have to start over after having wasted so many years chasing rainbows.

I like eating eggs but I wouldn't want them on my face either but explain how this finding can be reconciled with the claims of Relativity.

Thank you.[/color]

[James R]

MacM:

How does this square with the measurements showing the earth moving 700,000 (forgot the units) in the CMBR?

The CMBR is not an aether; it consists of microwave photons from the big bang. Yes, the Earth has a velocity relative to the CMBR. So what? The CMBR as a reference frame is no more special than any other frame. It certainly doesn't provide any kind of "universal standard of rest", as is required by aether theories.

Also the biggest grievence I see in Einstein getting credits is the E = mc^2.

It just seems to me that it is more proper to credit him with the successful compilation of other theories. That is he didn't discover Relativity, that preceeded him.

You are completely wrong to say he didn't discover relativity. Perhaps you should read his 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", for a start.

I have seen several other articles that claim GR is flawed and contains a hidden aether.

I'm sure they are a dime a dozen. And they're all equally wrong.

It also seems hollow to claim since one can calculate without it that it is supurflous. The issue should be what are the physical principles behind Relativity. If that happens to be an aether so be it, why reject it? That was infact Einstein's premis. He hadn't shown it didn't exist but only that we didn't need it. In fact he said nothing could actually jpropagate through space without it. Yet today it is thaught and claimed that he proved it didn't exist. That is a false claim.

Suppose I retain all of Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism, but add the addition assumption that all electric and magnetic fields are, in fact, directed and caused by Herbert the purple dragon who lives in my garage. Nobody can prove that Herbert doesn't exist, but as it happens the laws of electromagnetism work equally as well without Herbert as with him. My question to you then is: what value does Herbert's existence add to electromagnetic theory? I could argue that he provides the "mechanism" for the laws. I assert that without Herbert, electromagnetic effects would not work at all. I further assert that all Maxwell's equations do is play around with maths to make correct predictions about electromagnetic phenomena. They don't even discuss the "real" driver of the phenomena, which is, of course, Herbert and his Amazing Electromagnetic Control Magic.

Your beloved aether is no different from Herbert the Magic Purple Garage Dragon.

For example, James responded above that the author just doesn't understand GR. I can make a simular response by saying "UniKEF is the correct view but you just don't undersand it".

I don't think you would accept that statement. The point is why should we accept simular statements supporting Relativity?

I have clearly pointed out several specific misconceptions of the author with regard to GR and electromagnetism.

[MacM]

James R.,

The CMBR is not an aether; it consists of microwave photons from the big bang. Yes, the Earth has a velocity relative to the CMBR. So what? The CMBR as a reference frame is no more special than any other frame. It certainly doesn't provide any kind of "universal standard of rest", as is required by aether theories.

ANS: We don't disagree here. I am not suggesting the CMBR is an ether. My point it that we can and do measure our absolute motion in space, in contrast to the arguement that there is no such universal reference frame. The simple fact is one can produce simular results that are consistant with Relativity using the CMBR as an absolute reference and using alternative theories to do our calculations. I understand that that is more difficult than Relativity but that is not the issue. The issue is the need for a Physical Model to constrain the Relavistic Mathematical Model.

You are completely wrong to say he didn't discover relativity. Perhaps you should read his 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", for a start.

ANS: And just what were the dates of Lorentz, Fitzgerald and the others contribution to Ether Relativity? Also I note that you didn't comment on his getting credit for E = mc^2.

I'm sure they are a dime a dozen. And they're all equally wrong.

ANS: But then again they may well be precisely right but since you and others refuse to take the information seriously we may never know.

My question to you then is: what value does Herbert's existence add to electromagnetic theory?

ANS: It might or might not affect the mathematics associated but then again if it were found that Herbert was a fire breather, it would make one hell of a difference when you opened your garage door and faced reality. It is simply prudent to know Herberts physical attributes since that would surely lead to greater insight, and further discovery. It might even keep you from losing your house due to a garage fire because you refused to believe in fire breathing dragons.

Your beloved aether is no different from Herbert the Magic Purple Garage Dragon.

ANS: You are mistaken here. I do not have a beloved aether. I simply think it is bad science to disregard it and not rule it in or out. Even Einstien (in contrast to most claims) did not claim to have proven there is no ether. He in fact said space could not work without it. My complaint is that modern physics distorts what Einstein actually said and use his name like the Bible by religious fanatics.

I have clearly pointed out several specific misconceptions of the author with regard to GR and electromagnetism.

ANS: I was not challenging your specific responses but only making reference to the generalization type responses which are to typical here.

NOTE: I just want to note that you appear to be the only professional with enough integrity to have voted a truthful grade. The others have voted 100% invalid. Either you don't know physics or they don't know physics or they are as usual are being deliberately more negative than is justifiable.

[James R]

MacM:

I am not suggesting the CMBR is an ether. My point it that we can and do measure our absolute motion in space, in contrast to the arguement that there is no such universal reference frame.

No, we don't. A measurement of our velocity relative to the CMBR is not a measuremnet of our absolute motion through space, as I said before. Space is not a substance.

The simple fact is one can produce simular results that are consistant with Relativity using the CMBR as an absolute reference and using alternative theories to do our calculations.

The word "absolute" is superfluous here.

You have given no alternative theory which is any good for calculations.

And just what were the dates of Lorentz, Fitzgerald and the others contribution to Ether Relativity?

There was no such thing as "ether relativity" in the 1890s. That is a label which has been attached only recently to a hodge-podge of different ideas and observations.

Also I note that you didn't comment on his getting credit for E = mc^2.

I believe Heaviside and others suggested E=mc² prior to Einstein. But, to my knowledge, they did not derive it from a general theory. Einstein did, and that's why he gets the credit.

You are mistaken here. I do not have a beloved aether. I simply think it is bad science to disregard it and not rule it in or out.

Using Herbert the dragon, I just explained to you why it is <b>good</b> science to disregard it. It is a superfluous concept.

Even Einstien (in contrast to most claims) did not claim to have proven there is no ether. He in fact said space could not work without it.

Your first sentence is probably correct, since I'm sure Einstein would have readily conceded that it is impossible to absolutely proven the non-existence of something. I have seen the quote which you believe supports your second sentence, but the remainder of Einstein's writings show this statement to be out of context with the bulk of his work. I suspect it was an off-the-cuff comment.

My complaint is that modern physics distorts what Einstein actually said and use his name like the Bible by religious fanatics.

Well, if so, it doesn't seem to have hurt the development of modern physics.

Funnily enough, mostly it is the crackpots on this forum who bring up Einstein all the time, not the physicists.

I just want to note that you appear to be the only professional with enough integrity to have voted a truthful grade. The others have voted 100% invalid. Either you don't know physics or they don't know physics or they are as usual are being deliberately more negative than is justifiable.

I explained why I voted "mostly invalid" above. I was very tempted to vote "completely invalid", I assure you.

[MacM]

James R.,

No, we don't. A measurement of our velocity relative to the CMBR is not a measuremnet of our absolute motion through space, as I said before. Space is not a substance.

ANS: That is one opinion and one which I challenge you to prove. I do believe that when Einsteins said:

"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense."

He was trying to tell you something. AND it was not that an ether does not exist, as is claimed today to have been his position.

The word "absolute" is superfluous here.

ANS: Only if that is what you want to claim. The CMBR is a universal reference, its theoretical motion due to expansion in fact leads us back to the moments of enception of the universe is is the utmost of absolute references. Any motion relative to it is an instantaneous image abainst an absolute universal reference point.

You have given no alternative theory which is any good for calculations.

ANS: I don't believe I have ever claimed I have. But then it is not encumbent on me to do so. Many others, perfectly qualified have done so. Lorentz is one.

There was no such thing as "ether relativity" in the 1890s. That is a label which has been attached only recently to a hodge-podge of different ideas and observations.

ANS: This does somewhat remind me of the famous line "It depends on what the meaning of "IS" is. Try Lorentz paper published in 1904 which clearly outlined the principles of relativity and are in fact the very basis of the mathematics used by Einstein in his theory called Relativity. The fact that Lorentz hadn't named his work "The Theory of Relativity" doesn't alter the fact that he discovered the principles and that Einstein simply copied them. See my post under UniKEF Analysis for more info on this paper.

I believe Heaviside and others suggested E=mc2 prior to Einstein. But, to my knowledge, they did not derive it from a general theory. Einstein did, and that's why he gets the credit.

ANS: How about J.J. Thompson? Your support of granting Einstien credits really do seem to be a stretch.

Using Herbert the dragon, I just explained to you why it is good science to disregard it. It is a superfluous concept.

ANS: So you like to claim but that claim is an unsupported assertion made about what you think isn't there but are unwilling to look to be sure. Your assumption is nothing more than a guess and a bad one at that. Not that I claim here an ether exists but that such assumptions are not scientific. The value of finding an ether would be immense.

Your first sentence is probably correct, since I'm sure Einstein would have readily conceded that it is impossible to absolutely proven the non-existence of something. I have seen the quote which you believe supports your second sentence, but the remainder of Einstein's writings show this statement to be out of context with the bulk of his work. I suspect it was an off-the-cuff comment.

ANS: You can make light or suggest that Einstein was making light of the issue but I rather doubt that was so since these statements were not made casually but in a rather formal speech. It is good of you to at least admit that these were Einsteins actual statements. Many here claim other wise. For there is no casual interpretation of that statement. It is a virtual mandate that space contain an ether. The very opposite of most claims about him and your suggestion it was an off hand comment.

Well, if so, it doesn't seem to have hurt the development of modern physics.

ANS: Actually I find this rather sad. We have no real way of knowing what damage, if any, has been inflicted on us and our progress and future by the elimination of Physical Models in Physics. I am not opposed to Mathematical Models, they are most useful but unsupported by Physical Models they leave open the door to far to many extrapolations which are shear nonsense and a waste of time.

Funnily enough, mostly it is the crackpots on this forum who bring up Einstein all the time, not the physicists.

ANS: I will ignore this unwarranted slap since I didn't bring him up but answered questions posed by the learned members here. You might want to re-think this comment since it makes your buddies the crackpots.

I explained why I voted "mostly invalid" above. I was very tempted to vote "completely invalid", I assure you.

ANS: But you didn't because your are more critical than the others and you knew it wasn't a valid conclusion. That was my purpose in congratulating you on your integrity.

[ryans]

The fact that Lorentz hadn't named his work "The Theory of Relativity" doesn't alter the fact that he discovered the principles and that Einstein simply copied them. See my post under UniKEF Analysis for more info on this paper.

O.K. That is **** enough. Too claim now that Einstein copied the work of Lorentz is simply employed to gain a sudden explosive response, which it will

MAC YOU HAVE NO **** IDEA OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. CAN YOU RECOUNT HOW MANY TIMES THROUGH HISTORY THAT THEORIES WERE SIMULTANEOUSLY DISCOVERED. TRY THIS

SCHRODINGER, HEISENBERG (QUANTUM MECHANICS)

DIRAC, SCHRODINGER, KLEIN (RELATIVISTIC INVARIANT KLEIN-GORDON EQUATION FOR SPIN 0 BOSONS)

FEYNMAN TOMANOGA SCHWINGER (QUANTUM THEORY OF THE INTERACTION OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND MATTER)

CALCULUS (NEWTON LEIBNITZ)

[Personal insult deleted]

I PROPOSE THAT THIS THREAD EITHER BE MOVED TO ANOTHER FORUM OR AT LEAST IMMEDIATLY HALTED. THIS DOES NOT BELONG IN THE PHYSICS FORUM

[Moderator comment: As far as I can see, the initial posts raised questions about the validity of relativity, and the priority of Einstein. Both topics have been addressed in the thread, in a scientific manner. I can see no reason not to retain the thread in the Physics forum. It is permissible to question accepted theories. - JR]

[personal insult deleted]

Take a look around James. All threads started by Mac have degenerated into verbal assaults. You cannot claim that we have not tried. His arguements are childish, and he even has the arrogance to put the onus on us to do his calculations, because he cannot outline them for us. This is enough.

[Moderator reply: This thread was perfectly civil in tone prior to the current post.]

What happened to the total black ban on alternative theories, specifically Mac's theory, and the sticky on psuedoscience. Mac's theories and others (like Peter2000) don't belong here, but in a appropriate place uninhabited by ignorant physicists (philosophy/Sci-fi)

[Moderator reply: I have seen no mention of Mac's theory in this thread.]

[James R]

MacM:

If you're really interested in Einstein's views on the ether, you might want to look at the book <i>Einstein and the Ether</i> by Ludwik Kostro (2001 Apeiron).

The following partial review of that book appeared in <i>Physics World</i>:

Most physics students learn from their textbooks that in 1905 Einstein banished the ether from physics as part of the revolution initiated by his special theory of relativity. What they generally do not learn is that in 1916 he reintroduced the concept as part of the revolution initiated by his general theory of relativity. The catch is, of course, that the ether he reintroduced differed fundamentally from the ether he had banished.

This book by Ludwik Kostro - a Polish philosopher of science - rehearses the pre-1905 history of the ether, especially Einstein's early views; his anti-ether phase (1905-1916); his new concept of the ether, based on his general-relativistic theory of gravitation (1916-1924); and its modification in the course of his search for a unified theory of gravitation and electromagnetism (1924-1955).

I have highlighted the important part. What Einstein referred to as "ether" in his later work (which is only very rarely mentioned by him) was what he called a "dynamical ether". Essentially, he meant nothing more by this than the physical properties of spacetime.

If I understand correctly, it seems that he thought that once you start to give spacetime a property like "curvature", the spacetime takes on a kind of substance by virtue of possessing that property. You can no longer think of it as a completely empty thing devoid of features.

This view is, of course, largely a philosophical point of view, and is completely different from the kind of aether the nutters would like to have. When they talk of the ether, they have in mind the old, pre-relativity mechanical ether (or "luminiferous aether"), which is supposed to be a substantive medium which carries light.

So, if you want to basically relabel spacetime using the term "ether" in the sense that Einstein used the term, I will argue with you only on the basis that by far the majority of people will misunderstand the sense in which you wish to use the term. If, on the other hand, you are plugging for a substantive substance to carry light, then you might as well be living in the 1800s.

The fact is, we can quite happily do physics without ever needing to use the term "ether". Since the term "spacetime" seems to be equally as good and means the same thing in Einstein's terms, it would only obfuscate things to reintroduce an outdated term to stand in for a modern concept. Inevitably, people will confuse the new usage with the old. It is far better to throw away the old completely, and talk in the new (100 year old!) language of relativity.

[MacM]

ryans,

]O.K. That is **** enough. Too claim now that Einstein copied the work of Lorentz is simply employed to gain a sudden explosive response, which it will

MAC YOU HAVE NO **** IDEA OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. CAN YOU RECOUNT HOW MANY TIMES THROUGH HISTORY THAT THEORIES WERE SIMULTANEOUSLY DISCOVERED. TRY THIS

SCHRODINGER, HEISENBERG (QUANTUM MECHANICS)

DIRAC, SCHRODINGER, KLEIN (RELATIVISTIC INVARIANT KLEIN-GORDON EQUATION FOR SPIN 0 BOSONS)

FEYNMAN TOMANOGA SCHWINGER (QUANTUM THEORY OF THE INTERACTION OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND MATTER)

CALCULUS (NEWTON LEIBNITZ)

ANS: [provocation deleted] Certainly concurrent and independant thoughts (as well as inventions) have occured numerous times in history. But in this case your arguement falls flat since Einstien openly had discussed their work prior to proposing Relativity and publishing it. Since it was you that once again have come into a thread and prodded it in this direction. Particularily since you have just admitted that your sole purpose in posting has been and continues to be just for this purpose. It is you sir that should be banned from this panel.

[attempts to drag other posters and moderator into a personal argument deleted]

[personal attacks deleted]

[Off-topic discussion of an alternative theory (UniKEF) deleted, except for the following, which is preserved for the record:]

I make this challenge: "Do the mathematics and if they are done in accordance with and properly consider the process I have described and are not "Inverse square" I not only will not mention UniKEF here again, I will remove it from my alternative theories site." I have no ego here. I have no reason to pursue something if it is in error.

But you nor anybody has ever made a bonafide challenge of the calculus finding and until that is done this is all a waste of time.[/color]

[deleted off-topic personal stuff, as requested by poster]

The repeated assertion that I do not understand is wholly false. There is a big difference between not understading something and not accepting it for causes and reasons.

That was also the case prior to the effort to derail the thread by ryans. This suggest to me that there is genuine interest by your members in this subject.