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: 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 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
c'est moi, 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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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. You make it sound so simple! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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...
C'est Moi 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
What is really pseudo? 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. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"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 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 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:
