Relativity. Science or Cult?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by ncheropoulos, Nov 7, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ncheropoulos Registered Member

    Like many others, I follow the ongoing controversy about stickers in science
    textbooks. I felt, that I had to do my part in defense of the scientific
    Method. I thought I could prove the validity of the scientific method by
    demonstrating it on a less contagious issue. I decided to go with Einstein’s
    relativity. After all, I hold degrees in aerospace as well as physics. And
    spend quite some time setting up interferometry experiments. I have some
    understanding of the matter.

    To my dismay, I found that relativity is not that scientific after all. It is
    not even logical. That occurred to me, for the first time back in May. You
    could say, that the good lord turned me from Saulus to Paulus.

    However I spend some time putting together a scientific article in order to
    present my findings for review. I submitted the article to many peer reviewed
    publications. Always got an immediate response. It read:

    > We regret to inform you that we do not publish “This Kind of article" <

    That came to me as a surprise. I assure you, my article does not contain any
    circular arguments, or divisions by zero nor do my calculations produce any
    ridiculous predictions. The math is very simple, and the results absolutely
    intuitive. I double-checked my mathematical argument, my diagrams and my
    conclusions. I could not see what they mean by “This Kind of Article”.

    So I asked if they could point out the factual errors of my argument. I never
    got an answer. In fact nobody ever bothered to read it. It strikes me as odd,
    that those publications do not have any reservations when it comes to the
    publication of theories about, Super strings, 11 Dimensions, The big splat, The
    big bang and many other fantastic things. So way should they refuse to even
    read my quite simple solution of the Michelson-Morley experiment?
    Is it not permitted to question the “Miracles of science”?

    I do not claim infallibility. All I ask for is an objective review. How else can
    I verify the correctness of my findings? I decided to put the whole thing
    online you can find it at:

    It contains a classical solution of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which takes
    the Fizeau effect into consideration. You may find it Interesting.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

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

    You must realise that the mainstream scientific community doesn't agree with you about either of these things.

    Your first point relies on a definition of what is "scientific", so let's leave that aside for now.

    Before I take time to read your article, please explain briefly what is illogical about the theory of relativity. I hope you have something better to offer than "it is non-intuitive, and doesn't match common sense", which is the usual catch-cry of the crank. I assume you can show a mathematical flaw in the theory.

    So, I'll make a deal with you. Briefly explain one flaw in the theory of relativity to show why it is illogical. Then I'll examine your paper. Ok?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. ncheropoulos Registered Member

    Look at the situation of the Twin Paradox. General relativity resolves that by having each observer be in his own 4-dim manifold. That surely explains the paradox away.
    But it does so by means of spatial and temporal separation. What happens if the ships of the Twins crash into eachother. Ahat are the ages the crash site investigators are going to determine when they examine the corpses.

    The other thing is the issue with the cosmological constant. It is completely arbitrary. You observe, then you go back and set the cosmological constant to a value that matches your observations. Relativity needs the cosmological constatnt, because the relativistic universe contains no mass or energy it is a zero game. That results from the equivalence principle. The only gravitational force that has 0 distance differential is a zero gravitational force. Einstein prevents his universe from collapsing, by filling it up with an energy density. thats the meaning of the cosmological constant. After big bang cosmology came up, he set the CC back to zero for now he had the energy of the big bang. After it was discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating the CC was again adjusted. Does that seem scientific.

    Besides relativity does not provide any mechanism to account for the big bang. So what makes the big bang Bang?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

  8. ncheropoulos Registered Member

    The idea behind the whole thing is, that physics took a wrong turn as it followed Einsteins suggestions. When you take a wrong turn, you'll have to back track. And that is exactly what i'm trying to do. I go back to the year 1900. Relativity does not exist yet. The results of the Michelson-Morley experiments are verified.

    This is my starting point. Can the ether theory account for the results of the michelson-morley experiment? This is my question.

    The geometry of the lightpaths i propose seems to do that. Again i do not claim infalibility. My Calculation might be wrong. But if it is, it has to be wrong whithin the framework of my pre-relativistic assumptions as well.

    I assume that the ether exists. Before you declare me a lunatic consider this:

    1. Einstein rejects the existence of the ether. But in general relativity he introduces the Cosmological Constant, which is nothing more than a energy density (a negative one but still). So he fills the empty space of special relativity with something. How is that any different from assuming space beeing filled with ether?

    2. The Concept of vaccum in Quantum physics, does not match special relativitys empty space. Quantum space is filled with fluctuating particle pairs and energy fields. It contains something. How is that different from a dynamic ether?

    3. General Relativity accounts only for one force: Gravity. That is an attractive force. Can relativity account for the forces that drove the big bang? What made the big bang go Bang?

    4. Relativity is completely deterministic. Karl Popper realized that. Nothing ever happens in the relativistic universe everything is set from the beginning.

    5. The only way relativity can account for the accelerated expansion of the universe is the cosmological constant. There has to be something which pushes against gravity (the only resident force of relativity). The Concept of the arbitrary Cosmological constant is nothing more then filling up the relativistic bubble with Einstein's Gas.

    If you have any objections to the points above, i would love to hear them!
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    It sounds as if you think relativity says the twins each inhabit completely separate spacetimes, with no connection. It says no such thing. Your crash site investigators will find one twin definitely older than the other, and everybody will agree that that is the case. All events which happen in one frame of reference must happen in every other frame as well. Only the distances and times between events can change, and only in different frames. Twins who meet up and end up stationary relative to each other will always agree on their ages - which one has aged more or less, etc.

    Just like all fundamental constants of nature. Want to know the mass of an electron? You try to measure it, then you adjust the value of the mass to match your observations. Over time, better observations give better values for the constant. The cosmological constant is no different than the speed of light, or Planck's constant or whatever, in that respect.

    Nobody knows. But then, relativity doesn't claim to explain the origin of the big bang. All physicists recognise that a new theory is needed to explain that.

    Complaining that relativity can't explain why the big bang occurred is equivalent to complaining that Newton's laws of physics can't explain black holes. Everybody knows and admits that these theories do not explain those things.
  10. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    it seems to me that ncheropoulos has come down with a case of "what if everyone is wrong" syndrome, its very common.

    however, I assure you ncheropoulos, that most (perhaps all) problems with SR can be found to be non-problems if you work through them carefully enough. I challenge you to find a flaw in SR, post it here, and have that flaw survive the scrutiny of sciforums. its not easy to get one past us (I say US, but I mostly lurk because others tend to say what I would have said, only better) GR is another story, its harder to work through problems, and fewer of us SF'er can contribute.

    I encourage you to try and present a flaw in SR, it is a great learning tool to read/participate in a discussion of this nature. my critical thinking skills have probably improved ten-fold since I became a member a year ago.
  11. ncheropoulos Registered Member

    1. I think i havent made my objections to time dilation completely clear here is what i mean:

    It is a real effect and has been verified experimentally Nobody denies that. But does it support relativity? You pack an atomic clock into an airplane, and fly it a couple of times around the globe. When you get it back, you will see that it ran slower then its twin you kept in your lab. Does that prove relativistic time dilation?

    What about the pilot of the airplane. He may, relatively speaking, consider himself as being at rest and the lab rotating under the airplane. He will calculate a time dilation for the clock in the lab. According to him, the clock in the lab has to be the slower one. It can't be that both clocks are slower then the other. Fortunately we do not have to result into ugly arguments. Experiments like that have been performed countless times. The clock that makes the trip is always found to be the slower one. That rather supports the idea of absolute motion then relativity.

    2. My comments about the cosmological constant do not affect its value. It's necessity to make the theorie match observation is the issue here. First you clean out space from everything. Then you fill it with assigning an energy density to it. If you have to assume space is filled with some form of energy, why not call it ether?
  12. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    cato: Just a friendly question: did you read the link before you posted? I think not, because it does clearly present alleged flaws. Surely you are too nice of a guy to want everyone to double work ( devote a considerable amount of time preparing a link and then also have to satisfy you by retyping here )?
  13. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    I will admit I did not read the entire thing, but it didn't contain anything I found alarming. a few errors though. minor ones.
    are they not both inertial?

    no, the one on the bus sees vertical, the one at the bus stop sees a siz-zag line. unless I missed something.

    I am a bit fuzzy, if I am stationary WRT(with respect to) a photon clock and the speed of light is constant to all inertial observers, how do observers moving inertially WRT me not see the clock slower? I see nothing in your gedanken experiment that shows it would be the same, other than your claim that it does. I don't mean to belittle your work, I would just like to understand it more.

    p.s. what exactly is it that can be predicted more accurately with your model rather than relativity?
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2005
  14. ncheropoulos Registered Member

    Gato: look at my last post. I think that explains quite clear what i mean. Time dilation is a real effect but it rather supports the concept of absolute motion. That's the only way of eliminating the contradictions of the twin paradox.

    The guy at the bus stop and the bus rider do not see the same trajectorys. Each of them sees the trajectory relativity would predict for the photon.

    The moving observer sees the ball follow the photon trajectory relativity predicts for him. And the Stationary observer sees the ball follow the photon trajectory relativity predicts for the inertial observer.

    Only the photon has no inertia. The ball does.

    Yes my calculation results to the same dilation factor but it is based on absolute motion.
  15. cato less hate, more science Registered Senior Member

    I have looked over your link and posts, but I still don't understand why a slower moving clock on an airplane supports absolute over SR motion. moreover, why can't both clock be slow? they wont be slow to the same frame of reference, so I don't see the problem.

    I just have a hard time seeing things from your POV.
  16. ncheropoulos Registered Member

    ok here it is: Pilot sees lab clock being in relative motion to himself. Calculates time dilation for lab clock: Lab clock goes slower then his own clock

    Lab guy sees pilot in motion calculates time dilation for pilots clock: Pilots clock goes slower then lab guys clock.

    Each clock is slower then the other. Can i be older and younger then you at the same time? You see the contradiction.

    That is the result of time dilation if you assume relativity of motion. Now the airborn clock comes back. Guess what it is the slower one. Always. What does that mean?

    Yes both clocks can be slow. But they cant be both slower then the other at the same time.
  17. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    URI: Very interesting link. Thanks.
  18. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    ncheropoulos: Very interesting thread. Thanks.

    In specific response to your thread title: cult.
  19. ncheropoulos Registered Member

    glad you like it cangas.
  20. ncheropoulos Registered Member

    Nice to hear that. Thanx Cangas
  21. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    These thought experiments (such as flying the clock around the world) were made primarily for educational purposes. You will not be taken seriously to reject a scientific theory based on reject a educational tool. Furthermore you will have to give a new set of equations/laws/rules that replace the existing set that can explain the data more accurately.

    This whole thing reminds me of my own field biology. People rejecting the theory of evolution because they see some kind of logical flaw in 'survival of the fittest'. As if this is going to make a dent in the theory of evolution. It's only a catch phrase after all.

    I think you have to do better than this. Nobody will take you seriously if this stays on the anecdotal level.
  22. ncheropoulos Registered Member

    Im not talking about thought experiments. Im talking about the Hafele and Keating
    experiments of 1971
  23. Mogul Registered Senior Member

    This objection keeps resurfacing. Perhaps the answer could be said like this:
    The measurment of the time of a moving clock in SR involves two time quantities--the time contributed by the clocks involved because they have aged, and the time contributed by the clocks involved because they are out of syncronization. Add the two and you get the predicted (dialated) time. Considering these two elements does permit both clocks to "run slower than the other" without any break in logic at all. I've worked out examples of this myself (not just the equations) just to satisfy myself its true.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page