Einstein's Fallacies

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by dkane75, Jan 1, 2008.

  1. dkane75 Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    Einstein's Fallacies

    by Dennis Kane


    Introduction

    It is widely acknowledged that Einstein's theory of relativity is the inspired work of a profoundly rational mind. This theory is the example that is always given whenever someone is trying to demonstrate how the "mind's eye" is able to overcome the body's sensuous limitations, and therefore gain a keen insight into the supposed hidden, mathematical nature of the universe.

    In three points, I will demonstrate the nonsensical character of Einstein's theory by way of exposing certain logical fallacies as well as the misunderstanding of a basic physical phenomenon (the nature of the propagation of light). Because each one of these missteps ties into the other, it will likely be necessary to reread this essay until the full weight of my arguments becomes manifest.

    My source is "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory" by Albert Einstein, copyright 1961, published by Three Rivers Press. This book was his attempt "to give an exact insight into the theory of Relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and philosophical point of view, are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics". (Preface, p. v)


    The First Point: An Ambiguous Principle

    In Chapter 5, entitled "The Principle of Relativity (in the Restricted Sense)", Einstein attempts to lay out the precise definition of a general law of nature, as regards how "inertially neutral" objects can be described by means of "inertially neutral" reference-frames (coordinate systems). As such, he uses the example of "a raven flying through the air in a manner that its motion, as observed from [an] embankment, is uniform and in a straight line." (p. 15) He then invokes a railway carriage that is also moving in such a manner, although not necessarily with the same velocity or direction. The principle deduced from this scenario is meant to indicate that, whether the raven is observed from the embankment or the railway car, it will always appear to be moving in a straight line and with a constant velocity, albeit the measured velocities and directions will likely vary. It is crucial to understand here that the only necessary similiarity between reference frames involves the general quality of "uniform translation", and that the particular magnitudes involved (whether it be angular direction or velocity) necessarily do not enter into the picture.

    However, his final formulation of the principle of relativity is vague enough to allow for a later reversal of the very picture that he attempted to paint with the example of the raven. It reads as such: "If, relative to K, K-prime is a uniformly moving co-ordinate system devoid of rotation, then natural phenomena run their course with respect to K-prime according to exactly the same general laws as with respect to K." (p. 16) Notice how he replaces the precise terminology of "uniform translation" with the infinitely more malleable one of "general laws". It is in the next point where these "general laws" do indeed involve the rigorous application of a specific magnitude, contrary to the prior example of the raven.


    The Second Point: The Confusion Over Light

    Chapter 7 begins with the platitude: "There is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in empty space. Every child at school knows, or belives he knows, that this propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km/sec" (p. 21) This statement is meant to set up the notion that light conforms to a "general law" based on the notion of an absolute magnitude (velocity in this case). This notion, according to Einstein, is given empirical validity by De Sitter's observations that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source of emission. However, he then goes on to claim that the observed speed of light is independent of the relative motion of a given light detector, using the example of a beam of light that propagates in the same direction as a railway car. He declares that the fact that an observer on the railway car who would witness light to be moving at a speed less than c "comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section 5. For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference." (p. 22)

    We see now how his "sleight of hand" finally pays off! He went from a raven that simply moves in a state of uniform translation regardless of the relative motion of a reference-body, to a beam of light that moves in a state of constant velocity regardless of the relative motion of a reference-body. The intellectual dishonesty of this step should be plain for all to see!

    To fully clarify the fundamental difference between the concepts of the states of motion of a light-source and of a light-detector, we should bring to mind a still body of water, such as a pond. Let us imagine a "wave source" in the middle of this pond, such as a circular piece of metal that is capable of moving up and down. Now imagine an observer located in the pond, near the water's edge. The metal piece represents a light source and the observer represents a light detector. As the source begins to plunge, waves will begin to propagate towards the observer. If the source is in motion relative to the water molecules (keeping the observer stationary), the only observable difference will be a variation in the received wave frequency. This is to say that the viscosity of the water alone is the determining factor in the velocity of wave propagation, and therefore, the motion of the source is never at issue. Applied to light, it is only the "viscosity" of the electromagnetic field that determines the speed of light, and the motion of the light source itself never comes into play.

    However, if our observer in the pond begins to move in relation to the water molecules, then he will indeed notice a difference in the "speed of wave propagation", in addition to any apparent changes in wave frequency. Again, applied to the case of light waves, we would expect that, while the motion of the light source never comes into play concerning the velocity of propagation, the motion of the light detector indeed dictates how quickly this propagation (the wave front) should be detected. However, we will now see how Einstein again reverses course by way of illustrating how the relative motion of an observer does indeed alter the time in which a light beam is received. The utter bravado!


    The Third Point: The Selective Application of a "Universal Principle"

    In Chapter 9, entitled "The Relativity of Simultaneity", Einstein invokes the case of a train moving in relation to an embankment, with an observer located on the train at a point midway between two markers. At a specified moment, there are two flashes of lightning that strike these markers, such that an observer on the embankment (whose position on the embankment immediately coincides with the position of the observer on the train) witnesses both strikes simultaneously. It is then asked whether the observer on the train will also witness both of these strikes simultaneously. Well, if Einstein were to rigorously apply the notion that the relative velocity between a light beam and an observer (regardless of the motion of either) is a necessary constant, then it would have to be admitted that this is indeed the case!

    However, he bizarrely upholds that the moving observer would witness the lightning strike that occurred in the direction of travel before the strike that occurred in the opposite direction, directly contradicting the supposed "law of propagation of light in vacuo". The point here is that relative velocity can consist of any number, either positive or negative. To say that the principle of relativity applies when the two velocities are subtractive (that is, headed in the same direction) and never when they are additive (headed in opposite directions) is perfectly philosophically bankrupt!

    Indeed, if he were to hold to his principle of relativity (as regards the absolute constancy of c) in this scenario, he would have had to ultimately admit that a clock possessed by the observer on the train at once decreases and increases relative to a clock held by the observer on the ground. This, of course, would have been too strange of a result even for Einstein, so he was forced to lie directly to our faces, and hope that we wouldn't notice! How utterly brave of this so-called "genius" of such high repute!


    Conclusion

    There is so much constant, uncritical praise given to Einstein by the intellectual elite of the Western world, that it boggles the mind how all of the previously mentioned fallacies and misunderstandings have gone entirely unnoticed. Those who are interested in invoking Einstein's "unimpeachable genius" as a means of "proving" the legitimacy of the Western techno-capitalistic order will not be interested in giving any quarter to the preceding arguments. They will likely say things like: "Relativity has been experimentally verified, so nothing that you say can possibly be true." However, I can just as easily reply with: "Oh yeah? Did you personally verify relativity with your own experiments? Or are you simply uncritically accepting the statements of certain groups that have every reason to make people believe that the rationalizations of the Western scientific establishment are universally valid?"

    The bottom line is that science, as such, can only be an active process of experimentation and discovery within the real world. In other words, it has nothing to do with the symbolic scribblings of those "geniuses" who live their lives inside of purely logical landscapes. Whatever it is that these kinds of people have to say should fall on deaf ears. Instead, it is imperative that we open our hearts and minds to the world of immediate sense experience, which operates with a "logic" that is truly infallible.


    Copyright 2008, Dennis H. Kane
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    But all the experimental evidence suggests that Einstein's relativity is correct.

    You are perhaps confusing special relativity with general relativity here.

    The last point made here is a postulate of general relativity, known as the Principle of Equivalence. As such, there can be no "proof" of it, except the test of experiment and observation. Both bear out the validity of the Principle.

    Einstein is completely correct here. The Principle of Equivalence implies that all the laws of physics take the same forms in all inertial frames of reference. Those laws include Maxwell's equations that determine the speed of light in a vacuum. It follows that, since Maxwell's equations specify a unique speed, and that speed is independent of the frame of reference, the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames.

    You obviously missed the transition from the special to general theory. There's no dishonesty involved. Einstein is quite clear about his assumptions.

    That is correct, assuming you replace "viscosity" by the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum. You agree with Einstein here.

    Yes, amazing isn't it? It took real guts to argue that time was not the universal thing Newton thought it was. It is a mark of Einstein's genius to make the required leap. Admirable, isn't it?

    There's nothing bizarre about it. Once you apply the constancy of the speed of light in both reference frames, the result follows from common sense.

    Of course, if you don't believe the speed of light is constant in all reference frames, then you won't believe Einstein's demonstration of the relativity of simultaneity either. But that's your problem, not Einstein's.

    Einstein does not say that the principle applies only to "subtractive velocities" though, so this is a straw man.

    It seems you didn't understand the discussion. Try re-reading and following Einstein's explanation more closely next time.

    Indeed. Is it not strange that all those bright physicists trained at MIT and Princeton and Oxford over the past 100 years couldn't see what you (I'm guessing an untrained amateur) find so blindingly obvious. You must be even more of a genius than Einstein! And, let's face it, all physicists are too stupid to see obvious flaws in pop-science books. Right?

    It really doesn't matter. What matters, for the purposes of this thread, is whether it is Einstein's arguments or yours which have demonstrable flaws. In this case, it is your misunderstanding of Einstein that has led to the problems you're having, not Einstein's deficiencies.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Someone should start a thread about James R's fallacies. Just because the bright physicists who brought Shiva's own power to French fry the Earth didn't see the problems doesn't mean that they are not there. Einstein is neither God nor is he infallible.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828
    People like you do, constantly. Usually such threads are nothing but childish bleating and whining. Please don’t bother starting another one as I have no doubt it would be more of the same.

    James R addressed the misconceptions in the OP with science and logic. Why don’t you try to refute James R's physics knowledge with some science instead of your usual offerings?

    (Rhetorical question as I already know the answer.)


    Agreed. So it’s just as well James R said neither of those things, don’t you think?
     
  8. Frud11 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    567
    Not when it's propagated towards a double slit, one bit at a time. For some reason or other, it propagates through both.
     
  9. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,203
    In this context, "general laws" means "the laws of physics". Note that relativity itself doesn't state what these general laws are - they're provided by (relativistic) mechanics, electromagnetism, quantum field theory, etc. This is why relativity is sometimes considered more a framework that theories should fit into, as it puts a constraint on other theories.

    While it's true that ravens moving at a constant velocity in one inertial frame also move at a constant (though generally different) velocity in every other inertial frame, this isn't of central concern in relativity. I'm pretty sure this is actually implied by the relativity principle alone - and it certainly is once you require that Newton's first law applies in every inertial frame.
    On the contrary, Lorentz covariance is precisely defined mathematically, and imposing it puts a serious constraint on which physical laws are "allowed". The fact that it's served to some extent as a guide, rather than a hindrance, to theoretical physics over the last century should speak for itself really.
    "Uniform translation" and "constant velocity" mean exactly the same thing. What's been added is the postulated invariance of the speed of light.
    The invariance of the speed of light has always been clearly identified as one of the two central postulates (founding assumptions) of relativity. There's nothing dishonest in this.
    And this is what physicists living around the end of the 19[sup]th[/sup] century expected. When they actually went out and tried to measure the dependence of the speed of light on the motion of the observer, they got a bit of a surprise.
    This is simply because, as viewed from the embankment, the train observer is moving toward one of the lightning strikes and away from the other. So the signal he's moving toward will intercept him sooner than the one he's moving away from.

    There's a nice animation here that explains how things appear from the perspective of the train observer: http://faraday.physics.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/SpecRel/Flash/Simultaneity.html
    Well, it has...
    This is beginning to sound like a conspiracy theory.
     
  10. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Hi Dennis H. Kane,

    Do you honestly believe that the senses operate with a "logic" that is truly infallibile ?
    So a mirage in the desert means we are looking at water ? A person whose colour-vision is impaired is right when he says red is black ? A person who hears god or the devil talking to him must be right ?

    Please explain why I'm wrong !

    Aloysius T. MacKiver -O'Hara III
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2008
  11. PatLXXV Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    On constant direction and speed of light

    There is an interesting suggestion put forth by Antoine Suarez on this. He suggests that gravity is a deterministic phenomenon, and so is the speed of light in a vacuum, which might be a unbreakable constant even with quantum mechanical double slit experiments around. If there`s nonlocality in space and time in our measuring photons, then it`s due to that part of nature which is described by indeterministic quantum mechanics. This duality is not logically unsatisfactory, since there might well be a `noisy translation factor` (sorry, my term, somewhat borrowed from Diederick Aerts, not Suarez´) between the real thing hidden in the wavepacket to its `collapse`. That is, measurement might interfere with the real thing before it pinpoints the location or speed of a particle.

    By the way, if you read Einstein closely (see e.g. what is published as The Meaning of Relativity, the first Princeton lectures), you see that the `third point` above was admitted and elegantly justified by Einstein. (As an interesting historical remark, it seems that Max Born was oddly fooled on this and wasn`t aware of the ambiguity in Einsteins development of special relativity! See the beginning of the chapter on special relativity: Einstein`s theory of relativity, revised edition, by Max Born Dover 1962).

    I don`t have Einsteins book here with me, so I`ll get back on this later: Anyhow this `third point` I`m refering to here does have interesting relations with the suggestion by Suarez mentioned here... I`ll try to give my thoughts on this later.

    See Suarez paper On classical demons and quantum angels, 2007 (sorry, this forum doesn`t allow me to give links yet!)
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2008
  12. dkane75 Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    I'm sure that all of the responses are scintillating, as usual. Unfortunately, I am just too profoundly uninterested to care about people's knee-jerk reactions of thoughts that come to me over many hours of deep, soulful contemplation. The problem is that I am also missing the possibility of reading someone else's deep, soulful contemplations. (Not likely though!)

    Of course, there are many who uncritically accept everything that the Western scientific establishment sticks into their faces, just as their are many who uncritically accept whatever the Pope has to say. Anyone who questions the "received dogma" is automatically labelled a heretic, crackpot, or whatever.

    As a metaphysicist (a philosopher of dimensionality), it is my duty to directly confront those theorists who attempt to make comments upon the "true nature" of space and time. It is said that Einstein was so brilliant because he allowed us to understand the "relative nature" of the dimensions, which Newton "wrongly" deemed as absolute.

    Dimensionality (whether it be spatial or temporal), as such, however, is the primordial ground that makes any sort of relativistic (experimental) determination possible. Even in Einstein's thought experiments, there is always a "hidden" absolute dimensional context that is the reader's. By ignoring this necessary context, he is given free reign to operate under the illusion that dimensionality itself can become an independent object that is subject to experimental determination. Thus, he is able to play games with temporality and spatiality in ways that "common sense" cannot possibly grasp.

    Before Einstein, the world already knew that the appearance of dimensional context changes, the further apart that an observer is from an object. This intuitive notion is also the essence of Einstein's theory: relative to one frame of reference, the dimensional context of another frame of reference will appear to be different. Einstein's undoing, however, was a fallacious deduction by way of an absurd "law of nature" (the speed of energy propagation is independent of the relative motion of the observer). The result is the entirely nonsensical "theory" that has been gathering dust in our libraries for over a century.

    So here I am, giving dimensionality back its absolute nature, just as Newton would have wanted. While I can easily comment upon the apparent changes of my dimensional context (as it recedes along the line of sight, say), I am not justified in making the meaningless assertion that these changes relate to some kind of "hidden nature" whose truth can only be determined by purely rational means.
     
  13. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,203
    And you couldn't tell us you weren't interested in having your misconceptions corrected before anyone went to the trouble of telling you what you didn't want to hear? Next time, state in your OP that you only want to "discuss" with people who agree with you and you'll save everyone else a lot of time, 'K?
     
  14. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Well, that is the clearest explanation I have ever had of why the senses operate with infallible accuracy.
     
  15. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Dkane,

    I'm kind of hoping you will fill in the few small gaps in your explanation of why the senses operate with infallible accuracy. As a philosopher of dimensionality I feel it's your duty to help those of us who inhabit a lower plane of existence.
     
  16. Hercules Rockefeller Beatings will continue until morale improves. Moderator

    Messages:
    2,828

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Translation: "I’m an internet crackpot with no detailed knowledge or understanding of the subjects I discuss and no willingness to listen to anyone who does have knowledge or understanding."


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Ah yes, the archetypal crackpot logical fallacy. Here is one of the best SciForums posts ever written. It pertains to you, dkane75.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=11473
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Ah, MetaKron and dkane75 - what a pair you make!

    MetaKron:

    Why not you? Please tell me what my "fallacies" are, MetaKron.

    Correct. So, why don't you show us where Einstein went wrong, then?

    Correct. Nice straw man, by the way.


    dkane75:

    In other words, either you have no response, or you didn't understand what the actual physicists here wrote.

    Yeah, they all laughed at Galileo, yada yada yada.

    They all laughed at Bozo the Clown, too.

    I would respond to the rest of your post. I'm sure it was scintillating. Unfortunately, I am just too profoundly uninterested to care about people's knee-jerk reactions of thoughts that come to me over many hours of deep, soulful contemplation. You know how it is.
     
  18. dkane75 Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    I'm so sorry that I haven't gotten to read any of the unavoidable "crackpot" remarks about me! It's taken me awhile to realize that the longer that I spend arguing over my various threads, the less time that I have to devote to original thought. For example, I spent plenty of time yesterday figuring out how his major arguments in the crucial Chapter 23 (Behaviour of Clocks and Measuring-Rods on a Rotating Body of Reference) are just as philosophically bankrupt as the previous chapters that I cited in my original post.

    If I had given in to the temptation to quarrel with you guys, all I would have accomplished would have been to give myself a headache!

    More than anything, I just want to use this forum as a way to become recognized as a philosophical force to be reckoned with on this planet. This site just serves as one more google link that connects my name with some badass (hopefully!) philosophical insight. I no longer have any interest whatsoever in the dialectical process. I just want to read the spontaneous thoughts of those whose judgments I deeply respect, and I am not going to continue to go wading in the mud in order to find these people.

    So, if anyone wants to pm or email me at dennykane[at]live.com, I will give you one chance to read what you have to say. If I am not impressed, I will just permanently ignore you. Please don't think of this method as snobbery, as I am just trying to preserve my own peace of mind!


    Dennis Kane
     
  19. dkane75 Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    The Fallacy of General Relativity

    (An addendum to "Einstein's Fallacies")

    My essay, "Einstein's Fallacies" (a critique of "Relativity: The Special and the General Theory") showed how Einstein's main arguments in the derivation of the special theory of relativity were extraordinarily devoid of philosophical rigor. The crucial chapter in his explanation of the general theory of relativity, however, is chapter 23 ("Behaviour of Clocks and Measuring-Rods on a Rotating Body of Reference"). The remainder of the chapters in the section dealing with general relativity relate mainly to the simple transition from a rigid Cartesian coordinate system to an arbitrary Gaussian coordinate system.

    He sets up the scenario with a circular disc that is rotating about its center with respect to a Galileian (constant velocity) body of reference. Then, there appears an observer who is seen to be sitting on the edge of this rotating disc, who "is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction". (p. 89) This force is said by Einstein to be indistinguishable from a gravitational field, and I will grant him this point.

    Next, the observer begins to perform experiments while on the rotating disc, and his mission is to determine the behaviour that clocks and measuring-rods will exhibit from various vantage points. After anchoring a clock at the center of the disc and another at the edge, it is determined that, according to the Galileian reference-body, only the clock at the edge of the disc will show a relative slowing. The only explanation offered for this slowing is that "the clock at the edge of the disc is in motion relative to [the Galileian body] in consequence of the rotation." (p. 90) The crucial fact here is that at no point does he try to explain why the simple fact of a gravitational force (i.e. accelerating reference frame) will slow down a clock. In other words, his only argument depends on a simple change in relative position through time, which is precisely the argument that he used in order to derive special relativity!

    Now, it may justly be stated that it is only in the context of gravitational fields (accelerated frames) that such a thing as a lopsided revolving motion may be encountered. While this is of course intuitively true, it is not at all relevant to the explanation that is given. To claim therefore, that "in every gravitational field, a clock will go more or less quickly, according to the position at which the clock is situated (at rest)" (p. 90) is profoundly unjust!

    So now, we are left with the ungrounded "prediction" that clocks will slow down, depending upon their simple position within a gravitational field. It should be obvious to all those who choose to ponder the matter, however, that this "prediction" is simply arbitrarily asserted, and that all that general relativity amounts to is just special relativity transposed onto an arbitrarily "squiggly-lined" coordinate system!


    Copyright 2008, Dennis H. Kane
     
  20. dkane75 Registered Member

    Messages:
    33
    Now that I've exposed the logical fallacies in Einstein's "official" explanations of both special and general relativity, I will now turn my attention to exposing the rotten ground on which all of so-called theoretical physics is based: the notion of an ontologically grounded frame of reference. What I mean is that there cannot possibly be a philosophically rigorous definition of a coordinate system that does not originate from the subjective experience of a particular, real-world observer. This just means that all possible forms of dimensionality are derived from the world of unmediated, "ineffable" experience. (See my magnum opus, First Metaphysics, for the full skinny on this point.)

    This point is precisely where me and Einstein diverge, and a satisfactory elaboration of it will take far more subtlety of thought on my part, and consequently, a full understanding of it will require much more patience on your part!
     
  21. przyk squishy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,203
    Well I posted a list of your misconceptions regarding the special theory of relativity (you did read about it in a popular science book after all), and you came up with excuses for ignoring them, so as far as I'm concerned, you've already been "reckoned with".
    This thread's newly acquired status on this forum, in the eyes of this poster:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    NOTE to the Mods:

    This obnoxious individual has openly stated that he is posting here NOT wanting any discussion but to simply draw hits from Google. On that basis, I respectfully submit that this thread - and anything similar to it that he starts - be tossed into the cesspool and locked.

    It's my understanding that this is abuse of the forums whose purpose IS to encourage discussion.

    Thank you.
     
  23. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2008

Share This Page